Out of The Box - Week Ending 03/20

I tell you, I feel so much better when I get to blog regularly. It really is therapeutic - not quite as much as cooking is, but being able to focus on things that matter to me, brain dump my thoughts, and perhaps engage in conversations with other like-minded folks is a huge honkin' stress reliever for me.

So, I'm dedicating this weekend to catching up on all of my neglected writing projects, beginning with this blog and I've just spent the last 2 1/2 hours sifting through some very cool articles, enough for at least 2 OOTB posts :) (so no excuses for not having a post next week).

Oy, where to start??

• Marketing Sherpa (faithfully) offers up advice to assist with your KM Branding efforts. Check out their site and sign up for the weekly newsletter which gives you a full week to access and review articles before they get locked down to subscribers


• Luxe Item of the Week: Honestly, it's a tie between Angelo Araneta's Diamond-studded chocolate cake and Diadema Diamante...personlly, I think the two go well together.


• KM Crush Patrick Lambe posits an interesting question in his post on the Black Knowledge Economy (which, btw, is neither - sadly - influenced by my increasing self-importance in the world of KM or the election of President Obama).



• Facebook Users Hate Redesign - Planning a redesign of your knowledgebase or Content management system? Read this article and this one too.



• Celebrity Trend of the Week: Celebrity Theft - a recession tragedy!


• Have an amazing marketing or advertising idea that could've changed the world, but went unappreciated an ignored? Submit it to Blurb’s Killed Ideas and share your brillance!


• I don't know her personally, but Anne Mulcahy (Xerox Chairwoman and CEO) seems like my kinda peeps...at least in this article.

Quick & Dirty: Retail Therapy

So, this weekend I was out and about enjoying some much needed retail therapy and doing my part to improve the economy....okay, maybe not so much because I'm a thrifty bastard who will avoid paying full price like the plague (although at this point I would pay top dollar to find a shoe store in Charleston that sells a pair of K-Swiss Classic Tennis shoes). But, this is okay because, as I eventually surmised, the economy is doing just fine.

At least, that's the opinion I formed from shopping at stores that are either supremely confident that U.S. consumers are going to spend massive amounts of money on their mostly non-essential luxury items or clearly didn't feel the need to (re-)develop better business plans.

Off the top of my head, I'm not sure at what point a Knowledge Manager might be engaged to improve a businesses economic outlook, but this Knowledge Manager has a few ideas on how retailers might make some gains (or, at least, shake me down for a few more coins):

1. Check your prices. Established businesses are working the sales like crazy (partly to move inventory, but also to minimize losses and maintain a steady flow of customers). However, new businesses opening in this economy (particularly small businesses) should re-think high price points if they are going to stay afloat in a difficult economy selling items that you can find at your competitor across the road. If high prices are necessary to break-even in your first few months, either consider pushing back the Grand Opening or finding less expensive retail space to reduce overhead. Or, you could just ignore this advice and crash and burn in month two - I bet I'll be able to get everything I wanted for a song. Everything? E-v-e-r-ything!



2. Re-invest in sales.Personally, I don't credit JT with bringin' sexy back, but I'd sure like to know who the hell you've gotta call to bring salesmanship back.Just like big manufacturers discovered the missing value of in-house call centers in the '90s, it's high time that retailers rediscovered the lost art of sales. Not just pimpin' out some cheap hired help to ring up a purchase, but utilizing your salesforce to both move product and get the kind of one-on-one feedback that most non-retail businesses would kill to have in order to understand what customers are looking for. There's KM for ya! Knowing what your customers want and are willing to pay for, directly from their own mouth, will help businesses to stock moveable merchandise and build that oh-so-critical customer loyalty



3. Revolutionize the mall.If there's one thing I think major retail outlets could do to single-handedly improve the U.S. economy it would be to revolutionize the shopping mall. These days shopping malls are the retail equivalent of the cookie cutter suburban housing development - uniformly pretty, convenient, bland as all-get-out. Because of the high cost of retail space in most successful malls, the barrier to entry is ridiculous leaving consumers with a directory of stores no different from any other mall. And, when businesses fail and must vacate, the effect on the mall is similar to that of a residential neighborhood - an unattractive, depressed, financially devalued community on the road towards mall death.
   
   Imagine if, from the onset, malls set aside a slect amount of space specifically priced and marketed towards small, locally owned businesses, perhaps connecting with area university business and/or fashion programs and helping to establish budding entrepreneurs and designers; anchored stores could even be asked to help subsidize this program (particiulalry since their investment is the largest). In this way, each mall is differentiating themselves, attracting a more consistent flow of consumers, and more firmly investing in the local economy.

Out of The Box - Week Ending 03/13

So, some of these reads have been on my "to post" list for a hot minute, but I've been busy enjoying the lush life. By the way, happy belated St. Paddy's Day y'all!!!! I celebrated with the usual family tradition of corned beef, cabbage, and boiled potatoes...and Guinness, of course, duh!

It's always nice when there are interesting and thought provoking articles to read and share - even if I don't always have the time to read or share them right away.

• As a Knowledge Manager I feel that a critical part of any successful consultation is holding up a mirror and "breaking it down" for the client before laying out recommendations, but in this article, Professor James Heskett ponders the question "How frank should leaders be?" with the rank-and-file.


• Question of the Week: Is Capitalism Working? Nearly 29 years after Time magazine posed the question on its cover, George M. Taber asks it again (and just when its been on my mind too...)


• Interesting Factoid: The US ranks only 16th in the world in car ownership rates? Really? Really!?!?! Color me surprised.


• Cool Tech of the Week: Gagapost offers easy collaborative blogging.


• Marketing strategist and blogger B.L. Ochman offers up some road rules for folks cruising along the information highway.

Reflections of a Knowledge Manager - YEAR 6

So, I'm just a few days away from the six-year anniversary of my first post-university KM gig (which, coincidentally, is only a couple of days before my b-day) and I had a nice little surprise while I was googling position descriptions for "knowledge manager".

Guess whose blog is the #1 search result?

Considering how little time I've invested in search engine optimization and how slack I feel about my blogging habits, I'm surprised, but also very pleased.

Anywho, I have a birthday tradition of reflecting on past goals and achievements as a way to gain perspective on getting older and helping me to prioritize the things that really matter in my life so that I can do a better job of reaching out towards all of those unfulfilled dreams that tend to get pushed aside in the daily grind of work, bills, tennis, relationship drama, and stressing over work, bills, tennis (yes, even the One True Religion can sometimes involve stress), and relationship drama. So, this year, as I near the celebration of my KM anniversary, I think it's only fitting that I share my reflections on what I've come to learn during my career on my appropriately titled blog.

When I began my KM journey as a college sophomore (following the realization that I would probably never graduate with a degree in Chemistry and study perfumery in Paris) I was confident that my (phenomenally brilliant, IMHO, lol) strategy skills, my butterfly wings (socially speaking), and my penchant for big ideas (I'd have "people" to take care of the details) were all that I needed to be successful. However, as I transitioned from student to young professional it became apparent that there was still much I had to learn about business. I came to the conclusion - very quickly - that one of the primary reasons that organizations experience such tremendous difficulty with KM is that it (1) requires them to acknowledge how much they participate in the culture of fear and greed that permeates too many organizations (behaviors that have the effect of a cold shower on KM, if you catch my meaning) and (2)demands that they let go of these behaviors, no matter how familiar and comfortable they may be, in order to have a shot in hell of achieving the (much desired) full benefit of KM. It's that whole "A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step" idea.

For those of you who've read my earlier posts (and even those who haven't, because you can't truly do this work and not know where the hell I'm coming from), you know that one of my major pain points is having to deal with being the oft-shot at messenger.

Just a few weeks ago I was totally spanked (verbally, of course, this ain't that type of blog) by a colleague for openly and "irresponsibly" asserting in front of other KM colleagues (and some high ranking muckety-mucks) that *gasp*, *shock*, *awe* - we should vet (review and assess) requests coming into the KM function rather than immediately agreeing to execute and deliver. For my part, I smiled it off and maintained my stance, well aware that the real issue at play is that too many people are more afraid of challenging the status quo (even when it benefits the organization) than they are of doing their jobs well.

(Sidenote: Right now I can't help but think about well-raised, intelligent students who act a fool to look "cool" and maintain mediocre or poor grades so as not to demonstrate their intelligence to peers; adults see this behavior as being ridiculously stupid, but how many adult workers refuse to pursue excellence in their workplace and/or careers for the same or similar reasons? Guess what, it's still ridiculously stupid!)

While I have learned how to "play the game" and navigate very sketchy and treacherous waters, I still resent having to do so. One, because most of the people that I've worked with over the years are fully aware of the counter-productivity of these behaviors and, two, because I'd prefer to demonstrate how much more effective KM strategies can be without all of the BS.

Sighhhh, this is supposed to be a reflection, not a bitch session.

It was a strange combination of ego (building a name for myself by helping to define what I initially - and ignorantly - perceived as a fledgling field) and synchronicity (all of the random events that led to me happening across an interestingly titled job description on Monster.com at midnight one Friday) that brought me to KM and sometimes - more than I care to admit - I get frustrated with the direction of my career and the sense of non-accomplishment; I jealously read all of the interesting and provocative KM discourse taking place and get pissy about doing mundane (albeit well-paying) grunt work that isn't contributing towards any visionary or innovative KM breakthroughs; I imagine what more I could be doing to achieve some sort of "status" and recognition in KM and then I laugh because I suddenly remember that the other reason I decided to pursue a career in this field is that (unlike writing or cooking) I knew I could walk away from KM, easy-breezy, if it ever got "old" and that if money were not an issue I'd be taking tennis lessons for hours at a time every day when I wasn't farming herbs, making cheese, and trying to get cacao beans to grow in the North Georgia mountains.

And just like that I regain a bit of perspective and I'm able to see that even if I've yet to be tapped to write a monthly column on knowledge management for Fast Company or published a bestselling and critically praised book on KM (which improves KM understanding just by holding it in your hands) I'm not doing too bad.

For starters, I get paid to do work that I'm passionate about. From the time I left grad school until now I've been blessed and fortunate to find one KM job after the other and with each role my understanding has grown and my KM "toolbelt" has expanded. I've had the opportunity to spread my message about the relevance and significance KM and introduce it to people who continue on their own KM journey even in my absence and break it down for people who met me with negativity, resistance, and misinformation. Most importantly, despite the occasional moments of doubt and uncertainty, I'm daily reminded that my insights and intuition about KM have not led me astray and have actually opened up doors (personal and professional relationships, jobs, and other opportunities), that would have, otherwise, remained closed.

Of course, I'm still eager to "make a name for myself", but there will be time for that. After all, if you're good at what you do, people will find you.

And I do have that #1 Google search ranking working for me too, lol.

So, I'm looking forward to the next year and seeing what develops. In the meantime, my goals are just to...
Stay real.
Stay open.
Stay focused.
Stay inspired.
Stay confident.
Stay passionate.

Quick & Dirty: Dirty Thoughts On The KM Track at the DoN IM/IT Conference

So, yesterday I attended what has really amounted to my first conference on KM at the Department of the Navy (DoN) 2009 IM/IT Conference Conference at the San Diego Convention Center

In my six, seven years doing KM work all of the conferences I've wanted to attend have either been fiscally or geographically out of range so I was excited to have the opportunity to sit in a room with my peers and others excited about KM to discuss the work we're doing. Unfortunately, I needed more than my excitement about being there to keep my eyes open.

Thankfully, I had my Blackberry and my similarly bored co-workers to keep me engaged.

My biggest comment on the whole experience is that I would think that experienced knowledge managers should know that people are less likely to share when they are bored out of their gourds. I expected more engagement and interactivity. Pehaps that's because I've studied Adult Education and the different forms of facilitation/presentation. After we left the track to get our drink on, I was telling my boss about the book Women's Ways of Knowing (Belenky et al) and it's influence on how I try to respect and respond to different ways that people acknowledge, develop, share, and valuate knowledge and the irony of KM's precarious place in the business world and its struggles to become "mainstream" rather than embracing its "outsider" status. That's how I felt during this conference track - that these folks were probably doing some fantastic out of the box work in their organizations but couldn't present their work with the same creativity.

Or cookies. You can never go wrong by giving out cookies.

That being said, I was super impressed with the presentation from KM Officer Nancy Jenkins. After years of doing KM work with a strongly visionary outlook, her more effective pragmatic approach to KM hinted at bitterness and disillusionment but I've been there so I'm not gonna hate. The bottom line is that she's in the right mindspace to drive KM through to fruition and those are the kind of people who help us to look good.

Anywho, other thoughts from the track...

• The Marine Corps is not allowed to use the term KM, rather they have to use the term IM? WTF?!?!? Somebody should call the National Association for the Advancement of Knowledge Management (NAAKM)
• Nancy Jenkins' Pragmatic KM: When your KM bubbles get burst so often that you start carrying mace
• Is the distinction between KM and IM really that deep? I mean, shouldn't we figure out how to care for the first child before we have a second baby? That's all I'm sayin'.
• Another Nancy Jenkins nugget: The Art of Collaboration...because collaboration isn't just a series of briefs, its a dialogue, a conversation.
• Cool quote from Dr. Ramon Flores: "Don't give me the data, give me the knowledge!"
• Personal note (on an audience members request for metrics): Developing metrics requires understanding the desired end-result so it says something (bad) that people who don't uderstand KM are always seeking out metrics.

At the end of the day, I walked out with a couple of questions inspired by my friend, Lil Magic (yes, I have a friend nicknamed Lil Magic). When Lil Magic gets his drink on, he's known to ask these questions (slurred, loudly, and often): "Where are we going?", "Why are we going this way?", and "Why is this taking so long?!?!"

Sometimes I wonder the same things Lil Magic, sometimes I wonder the same things.

Blogroll: Week Ending 1/31

So, as things settle down (whatever the hell that means) with my current KM project I'm trying to do a better job of keeping up with my blogs - this one and the one I started for work.

That means making more time to review KM literature and what other practitioners are doing/writing. These 'Blogroll' posts are meant to show my love and support for the KM blogging community and present my thoughts on the blog posts that catch my eye and get me riled up.

Today's catch includes:

• APQC's KM Edge
• Mark Pollard's blog
• Lee Romero's On Content, Collaboration and Findability blog; and,
• Matt Moore's Innotecture blog

---

On KM Maturity Models...
I have to admit that I’m not the biggest fan of KM content to come out of APQC (mostly because a lot of their stuff seems too structured and process-oriented for my tastes and I find that while they may not be replicable or ever designated ‘best practices’, many of the most effective KM solutions I’ve delivered are born “on the fly”) but that doesn’t mean I don’t keep up with the work they are doing in KM. And, I’m certainly capable of giving credit where credit is due.

Dr. Carla O’dell’s SlideShare presentation on 5 Ways KM Supports Innovation is great material to incorporate into one’s KM ‘sales’ pitch and/or service offerings.

On the other hand, APQC's Knowledge Management Maturity Model, is exactly the kind of thing I rail against. Not APQC’s model, specifically, nor maturity model’s in general, but in the application of maturity model’s as a benchmarking tool. In theory, I think that maturity models are great for providing overall guidance to any type of project, essentially establishing informational markers along ‘Route Km' ©. But, using maturity models to benchmark the progression of KM activities and behaviors is dangerous to the success of a KM strategy because it’s easy to get caught up in trying to conform the strategy to the model rather than utilizing the model as a purely supportive tool (one of many) to assist in maintaining the focus of your strategy.

Imagine that a physician has prescribed a course of treatment for an illness that results in side effects not outlined in the literature documenting the treatment. And, even after reviewing the prescribed treatment (as a good Doctor should) decides that instead of exploring and pursuing alternatives to address that patients particular situation and response to the treatment, the Doctor decides to continue aggressively pursuing the treatment outlined in the literature. Obviously, this example makes some huge assumptions and I don’t mean to oversimplify things. I’m simply pointing out that, as a patient (if you’re prone to trusting your Doctor implicitly), the idea that your medical professional would stick to a course of treatment that clearly isn’t working for you simply because that’s what the literature says, even though the literature doesn’t cover all of the crap happening to you, rather than saying, “Hmmm, maybe I should look at some alternatives”, would, no doubt, be extremely discomforting.

If you feel that, then, hopefully, you can feel my pain about maturity models.

Of course, maturity models (and medical treatments) don’t apply themselves and organizations (unlike patients) don’t have the ability to seek out a second opinion or switch Doctors, which is why it’s important to have leaders capable of making the distinction between a strategy (which may need modification, on the fly) and support tool that provides guidance, not instructions.

And, for those of you inclined to roll your eyes and consider this post one of my “duh” moments since you share this wisdom and already “get this”, please realize that there are a lot of folks working in our field who don’t. Sadly, I’ve seen folks base entire strategies around hitting maturity model milestones without ever really addressing their most critical KM needs.

---

On Community...
You gotta love it when thoughts and ideas ignite a firestorm of dialogue. Mark Pollard's point-in-post comment on the "antithesis of anonymity to community" (nestled in a well written post entitled "7 Things You Can Learn From Hip Hop...If you want to build an online community") led to a debate that has produced some provocative and worthwhile reading. Click through the links to the following posts and join the discussion!!

• "My Ignite presentation about building communities" (Markpollard.net)
• Not all interaction is created socially (Markpollard.net)
• enemy public? (Engineers Without Fears)

---

New KM Role: Search Analyst
I’ve been working with my boss to improve (read: gut and rebuild) the Search functionality of our Kbase so I’m particularly keen on the idea of having a dedicated resource (even on a part-time basis) and Lee Romero’s post defining the role of a Search Analyst was truly timely and appreciated!

---

Pimpin' Knowledge Management
I’m fond of telling folks that being a successful knowledge manager involves wearing many hats and taking on a variety of roles: strategist, analyst, salesman, marketer, facilitator, psychologist, therapist, statistician, database manager, project manager, hand holder, and con artist among them. For those folks working towards their KM Merit Badge in Sales, Matt Moore of Innotecture (who's steadily making strides towards becoming my new KM crush) has prepared a short white paper on Justifying Your KM Program.

As I learned myself (only a few years ago, really), when you are selling a product, any product, you are basically selling yourself – your experience, your passion, your ability to make their investment pay off (just check out the BBC show Dragon's Den). And, don’t get it twisted, when you’re seeking out executive and/or financial support for a business initiative, the same rules apply! In his paper, Matt outlines the three things you’ll need to make your KM pitch work. This information, coupled with the wonderful ideas proffered in his July/August ’08 KM Review article, Closing The Deal With The Help Of Knowledge (with Keith De La Rue of Acknowledge Consulting), serves as a solid “bootcamp” on selling your KM strategy for practitioners.

Everyone say 'thanks Matt'. “Thanks Matt!”

Click here to access the wiki version of the Justifying Your KM Program paper and here to access the PDF version.

Click here to access the PDF version of the Closing The Deal With The Help Of Knowledge article.

And just for good measure, a link to one of my personal favorite reads on the subject of sales and networking, Jeffrey Gitomer's Little Black Book of Connections. Jeff has written a Little Red Book of Selling, but I think the Little Black Book is the better starting point since it focuses on networking and building relationships (which is an essential part of the KM role, in my opinion). As Jeff writes, "The questions that you ask, the ideas that you bring to the table, and your communication skills, combined with your passion, belief, and attitude, are the fundamentals of what it takes to connect."

California Dreamin': KM Networking in San Diego

I'm not sure how well read my blog is, period (let alone San Diego), but I'm heading out to the West Coast again for SPAWAR's quarterly KM Offsite (the second week of February) and we'll be spending Tuesday sitting in on the KM Track of the Department of the Navy (DoN) 2009 IM/IT Conference Conference at the San Diego Convention Center.

I'd love to network with any KM Professionals based in the San Diego area, whether you'll be attending or not, so drop me a line here at my blog or via email at cyoung@modulant.com.

Christian

KM Divas

OR, "For Knowledge Managers Who Have Considered Suicide When The Drama Is Too Much"

Shockingly, I'm taking time away from the insanity that is SPAWAR (and, of course, I LOVE it, lol) to post something before the month is up. Once again, it's not my promised KM3.0 post, but I hope you'll forgive my slackness, it's definitely not intentional. As it is, I'm only awake and writing tonight because I stayed up to watch Serena fight her way back from almost being bumped out by Svetlana "Bumpy" Kuznetsova in the second set. Way to go ReRe!!!

As I raced down I-26 on my way home around 8:30p tonight, venting to Lucy (my new car) about my day, I was reflecting on some particularly bad knowledge management behaviors exhibited by some KM folks I know and it struck me how very true the maxim "your attitude determines your altitude" is with regards to KM.

If there's one thing I learned from my graduate program at the University of Southern Maine (and I learned a lot!) it's the importance of leading by example; practicing what you preach, as it were.

I believe I re-counted, in an older post, my attempt in the 2nd year of my graduate studies to evaluate KM practices and behaviors at Boston-area consulting firms offering KM consulting services for my Program Evaluation class. All, except one, of my requests were completely ignored. The single exception being Booz Allen, who's then CKO, Dr. Chuck Lucier, kindly responded that BAH only worked with post-doc researchers and folks from B-School's. Although, I was peeved (and my response to Dr. Lucier slightly bitter) I just assumed these organizations didn't want a flashlight shined upon their internal KM efforts in case the deets cast them in an unfavorable light and generated questions about their ability to sell a service they hadn't fully realized themselves.

Of course, that's just my opinion.

Anyway, I say all of that because I do think that it's important, especially with KM, to model the practices and behaviors we are promoting. After all, if you won't swallow the little red pill, then why should your clients, customers, or organization?

The problem of KM Divas, however, goes deeper than being a bad role model. As a knowledge manager, your personal attitude about sharing knowledge and information influences the development and implementation of your KM strategy. Having met KM professionals who've demonstrated that Nazi's and Communists can get jobs as knowledge managers too, you can imagine what KM might look like under that sort of direction (and that's not to say Nazi's and Communists are "bad"...they just don't have reputations for being very "open-minded").

Fortunately, unlike Whitney Houston's reality show and Diana Ross bouncing Lil Kim's pastied fake boob on live TV, most KM Divas stop well short of crimes against humanity. Rather, they demonstrate their diva-ness in their fondness for knowledge hoarding (sad and tacky), grand, self-proclamations of expertness (can you be a KM guru if you've never done any practical KM? I'm just axin'!), and preference for competition over collaboration (if you have a subject matter expert on your team, doesn't it make sense to use them over an outside contractor who will give you the credit for a price?).

What's worse, is when KM professionals don't realize they are a KM Diva. Unfortunately, these behaviors also limit any chance of success for good KM practices and behaviors to take root and become an organizational norm. At the end of the day, joking and office politicking aside, this is the major issue this type of behavior presents. If KM is going to sell the value, values and ROI of open, collaborative environments, it must be championed by folks who embody and espouse these qualities. (Or, who are willing to try - that alone will bring awareness of where similar-minded folks in an organization are coming from and lead to building bridges with people who could easily be your greatest cynics.)

For folks out there who are stuck working under a KM Diva: I feel you! If you have any strategies for surviving in that environment share them with me and I'll post them here. Who knows, if my dream of being an Herb Farmer when I retire doesn't pan out, maybe I can start up a Knowledge Management Diva Rehabilitation Program. I can already envision Amy Winehouse's "Rehab" being a KM Diva anthem, "...they tried to make me go to rehab and I said, 'know', 'know', 'know'..."

Ahhhh,that was cathartic.

Quick & Dirty: "Real" Applications of KM

Happy New Year!!!

I had planned on having my KM3.0 rant be the first post of 2009, but I've been busy trying to finish up my Q1 Goals at work and the time I thought I'd have free during the holidays ended up being used to party like a rockstar for four days straight (although Mary's in East Atlanta didn't have that song available for Maryoke last Saturday).

Anywho, one of the things I love about my current job is the opportunity to break new ground in how people understand KM. Most folks in my organization either have no idea of what KM is or a very narrow idea so branding is super critical. And, a key component of any branding strategy is the ability to define service offerings which is what I've been working on today for my boss.

Once you get beyond content management, which most people think of as the sole function of KM, you really get into the various ways in which all of that information can be leveraged. This, in my humble opinion, is what puts the 'knowledge' in knowledge management.

While there are many different activities that can potentially fall under the domain of KM, this list is really only relevant to the activities my organization's KM team is involved in (or looking to expand into). Still, this might be a good starting point for folks seeking to demonstrate the value of KM beyond content management (which, I've still included).

1. Content Management…
…refers to the set of processes that support the lifecycle of information, from acquisition, organization and dissemination to expiration.

2. Business Intelligence…
…refers to the process of aggregating and analyzing metrics and data about a particular business unit or function to identify and provide recommendations on potential opportunities.

3. Competitive Intelligence
…refers to the regular, frequent, proactive, and systematic collection, analysis, and management of data, information, and knowledge concerning the business environment in which an organization operates.

4. Key Intelligence Topics (KITs)…refers to topics of great importance which provide purpose and direction for Competitive Intelligence reporting. Three basic KIT categories are:

• Strategic Decisions and Actions (including the development of strategic plans and strategies);
• Early-Warning Topics (e.g., competitor initiatives, new technology developments, and government actions); and,
• Descriptions of Key Players (including competitors, suppliers, regulators, and potential partners).

5. Succession Planning/Knowledge Transfer…refers to the process of planning for the smooth continuation and success of an organization by:

1. Developing, sharing and transferring critical knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) from out-going to in-coming staff through a combination of training, coaching, and mentoring; and
2. Identifying the ever-evolving KSAs needed to maintain competitive advantage and strategizing the development and/or acquisition of suitable human resources.

6. Knowledge Discovery
…refers to the systematic analysis of user provided data to reveal previously unidentified patterns, trends, and relationships about customers, products, services, and other activities that can lead to new and profitable business opportunities.

Additionally, KM can provide assistance in the development of:

• Communities of Practice
• Organizational Literature (including White Papers, Action Reports, and Case Studies
• Human Resources Policy and Planning (HRM & HRD), and
• Technology Infrastructure Planning

The one thing that I didn't include in this list was the education and learning (provided by the KM function) around each of these areas. Keep in mind that with branding, marketing and education are yin and yang; every service offered by your KM function will involve educating your target audience.

Quick & Dirty: Taxonomy & Fried Chicken

Okay, the end of the day is in sight and I'm finally getting around to doing real work. I guess that's what happens when you spend all weekend sleeping. After my "insane-o" week of travel and presenting our proposed FY09 KM strategy I'm finally rested and had my first taste of really being awake in weeks, but now I'm tired from too much sleep - go figure.

So, before I haul ass and close up shop, I figured I could eek out another belated post. I've been working on our proposed Portal Taxonomy for weeks now and, after years of doing this stuff, even though the process is no longer confusing to me, it's always a task to sift through an organization's content and come up with a way of cataloguing it in accordance with the way member's of that organization think...even when you've got Brandy croonin' Right Here in your ear.

Anywho, two weeks ago I was making my way down to Hotlanta and, as usual, stopped off to get some chicken strips for the trip. (BTW, I know this economy is tight, but since when does Church's charge Popeye's prices?!?!?!...don't get it twisted, I love 'em both, but everybody knows Church's sells that "pumped up", "Durty South" chicken. I mean, eight pieces of Church's chicken does not make a whole bird, if you catch my drift. In college I could live off of a box of Church's chicken for a week because it was so cheap (and rightly so) and now they think they deserve an upgrade?!?!?! Whatev Beyoncé!).

So, I'm at Popeye's for this trip and one of my biggest pet peeves (at almost all fast food joints) these days is the organization of the menu. It's just a mess to figure out especially if you don't want a value-combo-meal-thingamajiggie. Then it hits me that this is clearly a taxonomy problem!

If you've been to a fast food joint in the US lately, you may have noticed that the menu has increasingly moved towards a layout designed to encourage customers to buy more Combo Meals. As a consumer it is annoying, not just because I don't want to have to buy a combo when all I might want is an a la carte item for which the price and quanitity is not readily viewable (and at some places the combos and all the extra grease, fat, and sugar contributing to America's obesity, diabetes, and ADHD epidemics is even MORE expensive than buying a la carte), but also because it gives the impression that what I see are the only choices available which means I have to spend an inordinate amount of time interviewing the person at the register who, more often than not doesn't know any more than I do (maybe even less) and I end up choosing between buying something I don't really want or going somewhere else to eat. (Which, I know, is clearly not a bad idea anyway, but its kinda my mantra that you're not really American if you're not in debt, overweight, and watch too much TV, so I'm just putting my nationalism on display!)

Putting my national (and frustration) to the left for a second, it occurred to me that this is part of the challenge that most folks creating taxonomy schemas have to deal with, synthesizing the "push" of information with a more "intuitive" schema that reflects how your target audience might actually look for information.

In the schema that I recently proposed, we took the approach of creating a flash-driven interface at the center of the page that "pushes" news alerts and critical content with a series of tabs in the bottom half of the page where content has been "bucketed" according to how users might initially seek out content (which also means placing duplicate links in several "buckets"...we'll count click-throughs later to see which are irrelevant). In this way, we're able reconcile the push and pull of information in a way that doesn't alienate anyone, not unlike Wendy's who, actually, does a pretty decent job with their menu. Thus, our customers don't have to spend precious time digging for the information for which they are looking and the KM team is able to minimize the number of potential users that we'll lose (and later have to suck up to in order to get them to give the system another chance).

Now if we can just get my two fave fried chicken houses straight - 'cause I really don't care for KFC.

Love, Peace, and Hair grease y'all!

Quick & Dirty: Additional Thoughts on KM Certification

Well, so much for posting on "the regular" with my Quick & Dirty posts. I've been staying on the grind and hustling to get roll-out and present the proposed FY09 KM strategy and haven't had much time for any kind of consistent blogging, but I've had tons of thoughts on topics so I'll try to kick those out quickly and silence my guilty conscience.

So, back in May I did a post on KM Standards and Certification and after working on my 'Curriculum' post I started thinking more on what a proper certification program should look like for KM.

For starters, I (the royal 'we') wouldn’t want to take a program that covered information from a very high-level. Which, of course, doesn't help the newbies to the field.

I would imagine that the best course of action would be to offer two tracks - one for KM professionals and one for non-KM folks. The non-KM professionals track would be for folks who are looking to understand KM from a high-level, they may or may not be planning a career in KM, they might just be interested in developing their own understanding of (KM for Finance, KM for Marketing, KM for R&D, etc.).

The KM professionals track could start with the essentials (which could be skipped over for KM professionals who are past this point and jump right into the meat…well, maybe there could be a quick, fast-track course to cover some critical essentials, but it would be a survey class featuring highlights - nothing intensive or in-depth. However, the “meat” of the courses in this track would focus both on a combination of theory and practical application. The theoretical courses would be more focused on forward thinking aspects of the field or, perhaps, focused applications of KM, stuff that goes beyond the standard discussions and day-to-day applications of KM, in fact, stuff in these courses can generate courses in practical applications of KM. Conversely, the practical courses would focus on the day-to-day applications of KM - knowledge audits, metrics development, strategy design and implementation, KM branding, and so forth. Personally, if I was actually in the market for getting certified (as a newbie and maybe as a practicing professional), I'd want a course or program that gave me useful tools as well as some background on the field, the thought leaders, a timeline of the field – critical events, guiding thoughts, principles. I think that these are types of 'knowledge tools' that a quality program would help one to acquire.

Just sayin'.

Sigh, one down, hahahaha.

Quick & Dirty: Re-Branding Luxury with KM 3.0

Noted 11/25: While reading this mornings news and alerts I came across the Executive Summary for an HBS Article entitled "Marketing Your Way Through a Recession" published in March '08. It's a great piece that just so happens to jibe with (and expand upon) my comments below. Take a moment to read it!

So, I'm totally jumping ahead of myself to even use KM 3.0 in the title of this post when I have yet to upload the post that inspired it, "KM 3.0 - The Return of Customer Service". Clearly, I'll have to launch that post ASAP, but it's about 6:40p and I really wanted to post this 'Quick & Dirty' before I leave the office and immerse myself in T-Day prep cooking.

So, I was reviewing news articles and posts this morning when I came across the umpteenth article on how businesses are dealing with the crappy economy (that's my official stance on our economy - you say recession, I say crappy...wait another decade and watch it become an actual economic indicator.)

Having exited my graduate program in December 2002 amidst a tidal wave of layoffs and joblessness that necessitated (me and friends across the world in similar situations) having to actually dumb down my resume and take a KM internship that - blessedly - became a full-time job (from which I was subsequently laid-off 2 years later) I'm extremely dumbfounded why the national media, our politicians, and even some businesses are all acting as if the current economy just cropped up over night like a thief in the night. Actually, it's been more like that whack-a-mole arcade game, popping up all over the place. Just ask the average American and they'll tell you, times didn't just get critical when AIG's mess exploded; it's been critical for a hot minute.

Anywho, the NYTimes posted an article about how luxury brands are coping in the crappy economy, the second article I've read on the subject in the last week (the first I linked to in last week's OOTB). Reading articles like these helps me to realize that I haven’t lost my gift for trend watching (even if I still don’t see the hype over Twilight, but maybe – despite my Gossip Girl fixation – it’s just my general lack of interest in 'tween-oriented media).

Before I'd even finished the article I was back to wondering what bomb shelther these folks have been in not to have noticed the constant crappy-ness of our economy over the last 5 years!?!?

Contrary to popular opinion, I don't believe it's an issue of people not having money (for the most part; obviously too many Americans have barely enough to get by with these days), they're just being highly selective about where they spend it, at least until a sense of normalcy returns to the economy. There's a reason why "old money" still has most of the money circulating around our country!

The fall of the banking industry does NOT instill a sense of normalcy.

My advice for purveyors of luxury goods is that this is not the time to cut back on advertisting...marketing will be your salvation as long as you are willing to re-brand luxury.

If cutbacks are necessary they should be made in the areas of production (reduce your output, which, consequently, makes your product more desirable due its limited availability) and focus/invest advertising dollars on smarter (i.e., newer, hip, more innovative) outlets for reaching both old and new consumers. An economic downturn is the time to (1) instill consumer confidence and (2) build and improve brand loyalty, displaying how well you know your customers to get at their safely guarded 'stacks' (that's a KM 3.0 thing).

One of the major problems with a lot of luxury items these days is that (on the advice of stupid marketing agencies - I know, I used to work for one) they've been pouring tons of money into business ideas that regard customer service as a premium service (instead of standard practice) and then selling that service to those capable of (and willing to) pay for it as opposed to treating all customers like 'gods' and building brand loyalty and equity. Now, those same businesses are going out of business as keeping up with Joneses becomes an increasingly poor investment.

Sidebar: a good example of a company with fantastic customer service and a marketing strategy that hasn't seemed to change since I can remember: Publix. As much as I love this store, I readily admit it can be a bit pricey (not Whole Foods pricey, but not Kroger, Winn Dixie, Albertson's, or Piggly Wiggly inexpensive either). Still, I'm a loyal customer. I even have a Publix rule to which my tennis teams are made to adhere. Nowadays though, I spend more money at Wal-Mart for many of the the same products (there's a company that's exploiting the hell out of this crappy economy!) How has Publix weathered the economy? Despite a 19% drop in profits that's likely been caused by eating some of their cost increases rather than passing them on to consumers, their sales have improved. That's why I continue to be a loyal customer.

When money is tight, everything not essential for living (fancy foreign bottled water is not essential; G5 jets, while hot as hell, are not essential) is considered a luxury (Starbucks is now a luxury, get the picture???) and folks want more value for their buck, so the challenge is to focus efforts on re-branding what luxury means to people, particularly those who have the money to buy what they want. But be cautious, in a time when the tastefulness of a company holiday party is called into question (because so many folks are being laid off), excessively priced purchases can be a sign of one's lack of tact, not wealth.

In the meantime, for you consumers, remember back when thrift shopping was the thing? Well, I’m here to tell you (as my fabulous and fashionable BFF Min previously educated me) that you can still get brand names, dirt cheap (in some cases, that’s literal – invest in good laundry products y’all) at Goodwill and save those duckets for another day! Nobody needs to know how you are able afford your social calendar…unless they’re following the same advice. Maybe you'll want to shop 'thrift' a couple of zipcodes over wearing a baseball cap and some shades.

All right, time to race home for Gossip Girl. XOXO!

Out of The Box - Week Ending 11/21

I tell ya, the week just flies by!! I've been trying to be a more responsible blogger and the bags under my eyes are telling the tale, but I'm sure a few more time exercises management will help me to juggle all of the balls making a bulge in my pocket.

So, for the first time in FOREVER I didn't do any work this week...well, if you don't count shopping for my T-Day menu ingredients (I'm preparing a Cajun themed meal in case anyone is interested) and braving the crowds at the DeKalb Farmers Market and my Atlanta Publix (where some manager I've not met before almost declined to accept my personal check because it has my PO Box address and my DL has my physical address and, he says, because the check number was less than 100 (I'm using up all of my old WaMU checks)- even though I've written roughly two checks a month at that very location and my Charleston Publix since April, and for that matter at any number of Publix's across GA since 2003...do better people, I am well known for how thoroughly I pimp the Publix brand across the country! Do you need a Knowledge Manager to help you implement and practice your policies uniformly?)

Anywho, here's my OOTB grab bag for the week.

• Could the crappy economy be the right time for your company to engage in 'Disruptive Innovation'. Don't have a clue what the hell 'Disruptive Innovation is? Read here!
  
• "Er, um...okay" of The Week: Common is Dating Hip Hop, Not Serena Williams…does Serena know that ?
  
• Fast Company is starting to remind me of the magazine I used to bill as my business 'bible'. This interview with John Havens on "Building Trust with Transparency" is just one reason.
  
• Cool Tech of the Week: Uniqlo's new HEATTECH clothing line. It may not do squat for your KM initiative, but it's still really cool tech.
  
• Political Hot Potato of the Week: Criminalization of HIV transmission and exposure. How about a community development KM strategy to redress social ignorance?
  
• Cool Tool of the Week: Thanks to CNet for introducing me to collaborative editing tool TextFlow. I'm still testing it out but it seems like a pretty cool to me.

Pitchcraft: A KM Elevator Conversation

Well, when I started this post yesterday at lunch time I was heating up my Red Beans & Rice and sausage (I’ve been on a Creole kick for the last 2-4 months now, working at perfecting my Gumbo, Red Beans & Rice, and Jambalaya recipes) I thought it would be a great time to kick out another ‘Quick & Dirty’ blog post, but it required just a little more time than I expected.

A couple of weeks ago at the SPAWAR KM Offsite in New Orleans, we were discussing how to expand our (internal) customer base and one of my co-workers suggested the idea of developing an elevator pitch for KM, something that we could relate in a minute or so to interested parties.(I especially like the idea of KM-themed lanyards and badge holder stickers that said stuff like "WWKMD" or, closer to my personality "WTFIKM: Ask me?", lol.)

An elevator pitch, for the unenlightened, is a quick, high-level introduction to an idea, service or product that’s meant to be delivered in the length of time an elevator ride takes, usually thirty seconds or roughly 150 words – although that seems like an awfully short ride to me, but I guess it depends on how big the building is, how many evil button pushers are in your lift, and how funky-smelling the other passengers are (funky-smelling passengers = eternal elevator ride).

This method of selling/marketing ideas has become so mainstream these days (it’s the inspiration for Twitter…my favorite tool for brain farting across the net) that there are even classes offered on developing and delivering elevator pitches!

Anywho, I was showering yesterday morning and thinking about another potential blog post when it occurred to me how beneficial it would be for KM folks to have their own elevator pitch. Probably one of the coolest things about knowledge management is that the name itself is a natural conversation starter. When you say you’re a Knowledge Manager or that you work in knowledge management people seem to automatically respond by asking “what’s that?” Even if they’ve heard of KM, or worse still, if they have a negative perception of KM (usually linked to their dislike of the term “knowledge management” and the belief that knowledge can’t actually be managed) they are still interested in engaging in a discussion, at least until you prove that you’re a conversation killer or a jamoke!

From a sales/marketing perspective, you can’t ask for more than that! Why? Because it means you have an opportunity to present your expertise, your service – your value – in a way that could very well open doors. In our janky, depressed economy dominated by organizations that have yet to truly and fully appreciate how knowledge-dependent they are, non-revenue generating KM initiatives are often among the first to get thrown under the bus so the ability to sell the value of your KM initiative or your personal KM skill-set to your future ex-employer is critical for career success.

On this note, I will say that one of the things I notice a lot (and non-KM folks have also pointed this out to me) is how ill-prepared too many KM professionals are when asked to describe KM and its benefits. Even when an answer is attempted, the response often flies right over the heads of the listener(s) (mine too, and this is what I do for a living!!). Having spent roughly six years during school and several years more in the workforce refining my explanation of KM to professors, classmates, co-workers and even hiring managers (don’t get it twisted, even people responsible for managing KM initiatives may not fully understand all that KM involves) I figure I’m as qualified as anyone to take a stab at scripting an elevator pitch...well, an elevator conversation at the very least.

Keep in mind, however, that this is how I would conduct my elevator conversation based on the type of KM work that I do. Every KM professional will want to tweak this to their particular KM activity or area of expertise. Robert Pagliarini of SeekingCapital.com lists 6 questions every elevator pitch must answer. And Eileen Pincus offers some salient points on crafting the perfect pitch in her 2007 BusinessWeek article on the subject. It’s doubtful that I cover all of this advice in my dialogue, but since the goal is to get a second, more in-depth meeting, this seems to work for me. Of course, it goes without saying that you should refrain from having any of this sound scripted or ‘canned’.

I’ll skip the part of the conversation that leads up to me disclosing what I do for a living – how you get there is an entirely new post and besides, I’m one of those people who just happens to ‘find’ himself in these kinds of conversations all the time without even trying! So, without further ado…Christian’s KM Elevator Speech!

Non-funky elevator person (‘cause we ain’t talking if they
smell funky): What kind of work do you do?

Me: I work in knowledge management (usually, I’d enquire about their work as well, but let’s not and say I did).

Non-funky elevator person: Knowledge management? What’s that? Do you use mind control on people? Hahahaha. (The joke is to cover their discomfort about not knowing what you’re talking about…this happens a lot when you’re dealing with people in positions of authority).

Me: I wish…that would make my job easier, hahahaha. (A counter-joke is my way of putting them at ease for their ignorance of KM) Actually, I help organizations create strategies to improve how they share information.

Non-funky elevator person: (Intrigued and at ease, because I have “a way” about me, lol, and because I sound like I might say something useful or valuable). So, what…do you work with computers managing databases or run some sort of data warehouse?

Me: (Cool as a cucumber) Well, sometimes that’s part of what I do – it really depends on the organization. The scope of knowledge management covers a range of activities from auditing how an organization shares information to managing content in a knowledge base.

Non-funky elevator person: (Impassive) But you’re not really managing knowledge, that’s more information management.

Me: Not quite. KM is a pretty multi-disciplinary field that combines aspects of information management and content management with organizational development and human resource development and a lot of other fields to create something very different.

Non-funky elevator person: (Engaged, but looking to challenge/debunk my explanation of KM) But how do you manage someone’s “knowledge”? It doesn’t seem possible. I’m sure you can manage processes and the kind of information people have access to, but managing what they know?

Me: (Keeping my cool and taking on a more authoritarian tone – it’s important to be the expert in these situations) You know, a lot of people tend to get stuck on the phrase “knowledge management” as sounding a bit tricksy (yes, I said tricksy), but I think it’s important not to lose sight of what KM, ultimately, brings to the table; or, at least what it should bring if you’re working with the right strategy.

Non-funky elevator person: (Listening…but ready to pounce on whatever sounds flawed or sketchy) And what’s that?

Me: (Still the expert) The big three? First, KM brings awareness and insight into what an organization “knows”. Too many organizations struggle with the simple fact that they just don’t “know” what they “know”. Even with a variety of tools and applications on-hand for sharing and storing information, organizing and centralizing content is a constant challenge. “Knowing” is the first step in the process of managing all of your knowledge and information for easy access and dissemination;

Second, KM brings a process for sharing and retaining critical knowledge and information. More importantly, if implemented well, that process can evolve into a cultural norm of knowledge sharing and retention. Perhaps one of the most common KM problems is the loss of critical knowledge that walks out the front door when employees are lost through downsizing, retirement, terminations, or employees leaving for new job opportunities. Even when a position is re-staffed or responsibilities re-tasked, how do you recover the lost knowledge? The answer to that question is KM. And, when properly supported and integrated into the organizational culture, KM makes any loss of knowledge negligible.

Third, KM acts as a “war chest” to help organizations weather economic ncertainty and ride out market changes. Perhaps the single-most powerful financial benefit of KM is its ability to provide a convenient, organized, well-maintained, up-to-date proprietary source of knowledge and information just waiting to be exploited and leveraged across an organization. Ideas on new revenue streams, new business relationships, ways to increase or solidify existing relationships – all just a few keystrokes away.

Non-funky elevator person: (Impressed, but cautious) Well, that certainly sounds impressive, but why knowledge mnagement? It seems to me there are several departments already in place that could be tasked to address these challenges, why create another?

Me: (Confidently) You know, one of the things that I love to share with people is that every organization – documented or not, and usually, it’s not – has a KM strategy. When an organization makes the decision that they need KM or something like it, what they’re really saying is, “what we’re currently doing isn’t working for us”. So, first off, I’d ask you to think about the things I said before about what KM brings to the table and ask yourself how your organization is doing in those areas. And, if you do feel that there’s room for improvement, why wouldn’t you bring someone on-board specifically skilled in KM to assist in that effort? (Smugly) Would you see a podiatrist to talk about a rash or a dermatologist? I mean, they’re both Doctors.

Non-funky elevator person: (Humored) True, but I’m also thinking about the cost involved and the potential disruption to the workplace. I can’t imagine folks are going to just stop working and participate in KM.

Me: (Still confident because we’re still talking and I’m getting ready to unload some knowledge – watch out!) I like to think that the cost of KM is inherent in all of an organization’s on-going activity, identifying specific activities as KM is merely exposing a hidden cost. Additionally, you have to weigh the opportunity cost of doing nothing to the cost of bleeding knowledge along with all of the costs associated with “re-building the wheel” so to speak, which is what you’re doing each time you have to re-staff a position and bring that person up-to-speed. As far as getting people actively participating in KM activities you'd be surprised how many of them are in need of knowledge management and may have already repeatedly asked for a solution without specifcally calling it KM.

Non-funky elevator person: (Surprisingly impressed) That’s an interesting way of looking at things. So do you get started with KM?

Me: (Pulling out a business card) I’d start
with giving me a call, hahahahaha. We can set up a time to discuss setting up a KM audit for your organization and go from there.

Okay, so I know my dialogue is a bit hokey – I tried to make it less so, but each conversation is so different that you really just need to be able to hit the major points and hope for the best. This, of course, is how things would flow ideally, but it’s best to be prepared not only for different reactions, but for different levels of familiarity with KM, and, obviously, different questions about KM. Personally, I try to keep the dialogue open and make myself available to answer questions, but I’m also trying to convert this conversation into a opportunity; I want this conversation to develop into a business relationship, not just an FAQ session.

Anyone else have insight they’d like to share?

Out of The Box - Week Ending 11/14

It's just after 2am and I've finished catching up on the latest episode of One Life To Live which has done a wonderful job (with the Todd/Marty/Tess storylines) of providing me with all the drama one could ask for...I believe that if I get all of my drama from daytime TV then that frees my real life up for all of the important stuff. Anywho, it's past time I posted an interesting OOTB list and, fortunately, there's been some interesting articles to read.

• Succession planning has become my new KM obsession and this article explores lessons learned from the McCain/Palin ticket.
• "Er, um...okay" of The Week: Tyra gives gift of sex change operation. Not something I'd expect to see on Oprah's list of favorite things this Christmas.
• Some businesses continue the sad trend of believing that customer service should be reserved for high-end consumers in an economic crisis instead of realizing that building brand loyalty requires treating all customers like rockstars, all of the time.
• How To of the Week: How to Set SMART Goals. Informative and concise whiteboard video that simplifies the process of setting SMART, actionable goals for your organization.
• Michael Hyatt pens a great post on 10 Benefits of a Recession on his blog, From Where I Sit
• Food for Thought: "America's Top Guerilla Marketer says the next big thing in advertising is honesty. Honestly." Can I get a side of that with an order of KM and some baba ghanouj?

Quick & Dirty: Thoughts on a KM Curriculum

I know, I know, I’m a total flogger! I’ve seen my subscription numbers plummet and I’ve felt the guilt, but in my defense I’ve been craaaaazy busy with my new job…not busy enough to miss a single episode of Gossip Girl (what, are you kidding?), but that’s just one hour out of my otherwise hectic week.

I’ve been working (slowly) on a new full-length blog, but I’ve started to realize that perhaps I should take a stab at kicking out more "quick and dirty" posts to address many of the KM thoughts I’ve been reflecting upon lately but don’t (or can’t) seem to find the time to blog about at length. Between these and my OOTB posts (which should be easier to write now that the election is over) I should keep my readers and fellow KM-ers happy and reflective :-)

My current position has raised a lot of questions for me about managing knowledge in a large bureaucracy, most of them focusing on the impact of politics (within the KM function) and how it impacts the pursuit and implementation of KM (clearly not well) and also, how one might exploit conflict and office politics to achieve something positive (essentially turning negative behavior into something useful and constructive). Anyway, since I’ve got a(n imaginary) timer ticking down at my desk and in keeping with the concept of a "quick and dirty" blog post, I won't take time to dig through my daily journals to generate a list of those questions, rather I’ll blog about a question that a co-worker just asked about an hour ago: What did I study when I first began my foray into KM that helped me to learn and understand the field?

I’ve already envisioned, at some point down the road, teaching KM in both corporate and academic environments and helping to compile compile a KM resource list. Although, to be honest, I’ve only made notes, here and there, regarding what would appear on such a list. I do happen to have 80% of the articles I read on KM during college and grad school and occasionally I’ll thumb through them and shock myself with how outdated (and maybe a little ridiculous) they are in the present. Sometimes I surprise myself with an article that is still timely, I’ll have to look through them again and maybe blog a post about how KM (through the literature) has changed..or not, over the years.

Anywho, to the task at hand, I doubt I’ll be able to come up with anything definitive in the next 5-10 minutes, however I’ll give it a go and I invite others to offer suggestions about what they think should be added.

The KM Curriculum
Although I have an undergraduate degree in Urban Policy Studies and the majority of my time was spent in Economics and policy-related courses (and nearly every French course I was able to take), a good chunk of my courses were in the areas of Organizational Behavior (OB) and Organizational Development (OD), as well as coursework in Business Analysis and Strategy. In my humble opinion, these areas are seminal to working in KM. After all, KM is all about helping organizations to understand how they operate and to recommend (and implement, if that's your role or objective) strategies for improving areas of need. Even though these recommendations may involve non-traditional solutions, courses in these areas help to provide valuable insight into how many organizations operate and “think”.

If you’re wanting to learn how the people in organizations “think” then definitely you’ll want coursework in Psychology and Sociology, which was a requirement for me and, I think, most undergraduate students. I also recommend courses in Adult Education and Human Development. As I’ve blogged before, the number one reason I decided to pursue graduate study in Adult Education is because I felt that in order to understand how to implement and facilitate change, I needed to understand how people learn and adapt to change. I’m not knocking B-School (much...in this post) but I took enough Business courses to know that the answers aren’t there. If they were, we wouldn’t see the same problems (particularly with change management) cropping up time after time. Successful businesses (and business practices) aren’t merely adaptable they look outside of traditional business avenues for solutions and inspiration.

One field that I never properly studied in school (because I was already kinda good at it and my mother wisely suggested I explore new and unfamiliar territory) is Marketing. Over the last few years the concept of KM Branding (an article on which I promise I will write and shop around and eventually post to this blog before the end of the year) has really helped me to understand the intersection of marketing and education and its criticality in successfully implementing change - period, least of all KM.

Statistics and Program Evaluation. Math was never my strongest subject in school and processing data isn’t my idea of big sexy fun, but the 30+ hours of statistics, analysis and evaluation (including survey design) courses I was required to take between undergrad and grad school has been invaluable to me, particularly when you’re dealing with organizations that only seem to understand "bottom-line" business communications. It’s always a challenge learning how to translate KM goals and efforts into these types of communications, but if you learn one thing about implementing organizational change it’s that having data to back up your recommendations is essential and gives you unparalleled credibility…the rest is all in how you spin that data (see Marketing above).

One course that I’d wished I’d taken is Technical Writing. I pick up skills like it’s nobody’s business, but having this particular skill-set from the beginning would have been much appreciated. Again, it goes back to being able to translate ideas into requirements and documentation that can be universally digested. One resource that I didn’t discover until my last semester at GA State (mostly because its availability was only disclosed to the B-School students, even though all students had access) was the university’s suite (LMS) of online courses for learning various applications (e.g. MSOffice, Illustrator, etc) and programming languages (e.g., SQL, PHP, HTML, etc.). Not that I would have recognized the true value of this resource at the time, but, in hindsight, as a KM Strategist (and not a KM Architect) I would have been better prepared for some of the technical demands of the field. Fortunately, there’s some benefit in having a Sr. Systems Analyst/Engineer for a father (who maintained one of the most high tech households on the block). Just one of the reasons why I pick up new skills and new tech so easily.

All right my time is up and I’ve got to back on the professional grind. There’s definitely more that I could add to the above, but I’d love to hear what additions others would make!

Out of The Box - Week Ending 9/26

Well, considering I'm knee deep in acquainting myself with SPAWAR's KM strategy and trying to understand OracleAS Portals (and why anyone would choose OracleAS to build out a knowledge base in the first place), I'm surprised I have the time or energy to spend on my blog, but I'm trying to avoid being a flogger ('flaky blogger') and get back into the swing of things. At least I was finally able to get my Gossip Girl/KM rant posted!

Unless you live under a rock (or in Iraq...chuckle...it's only funny if you pronounce it properly) you know that most of the news these days is either politics (yay politics) or the economy (boo economy)...or some combination of the two. Between the impending election, the bail out of AIG, and the fall of WaMu (which, as a customer for the last 12 months really didn't shock me - contrary to the commercials that woo'd me, WaMU was almost as bad as Verizon in the customer service department) I haven't read much this past week that sparked any KM-interest.

Not much, but enough to kick out an OOTB post for this week.

• No time like a crappy time to get creative and take stock of business practices and technologies. Check out these Tech Trends.
• No duh! of The Week: Clay is gay. Shocking. Really.
• Quote of the Week: "Business success isn't about having better technology; it's about using technology better."
• "With economists predicting one of the weakest Decembers since 1991, merchants must put their best foot forward for top customers" and knowledge management professionals can gain insight from these tips to keep the sharing flowing by targeting top contributors.
• How To of the Week: How to Persuade People With Subconscious Techniques.
• It just so happens that I love my new job, but what about when you don't? This podcast offers some advice on steps to take when the honeymoon ends before the ink isn't even dry on your offer letter.
• Cool Tool: Apture. Click on WaMU above to check it out in this post.

Cross-Posted: The Wisdom of Crowds Reigns Supreme

“Generally, no one person is smarter than the collective wisdom of the group," James Surowiecki, author of The Wisdom of Crowds

Before leaving my post at the CDC a few weeks ago, I snagged the following article which was posted to the CDC intranet. It's a brief article that I thought contained great insight for KM professionals. In 2004, Dave Pollard presented a model of how to implement Surowiecki's principles which can be found here.

The collective wisdom of diverse crowds generally gets it right, was the message of best-selling author James Surowiecki, who gave the opening plenary address to over 950 attendees at the recent CDC-sponsored National Conference on Health Communication, Marketing, and Media. Longtime HIV/AIDS activist Sandra Thurman was also a featured plenary presenter. Both speakers had important messages about expanding our traditional methods for all CDC staff in addition to attendees.

The Wisdom of Crowds: Tapping Collective Wisdom of your Organization

In the opening plenary, New York Times best-selling author James Surowiecki mentioned several key points from his book The Wisdom of Crowds, subtitled: Why the Many Are Smarter than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations. “Tapping into the collective wisdom of your organization can radically improve your ability to solve problems, make forecasts, and think strategically,” he said. “Under the right conditions, groups of people can be very intelligent and can be smarter than the smartest person among them.”

As an example of the wisdom of crowds, Surowiecki talked about finance professor Jack Treynor’s classic jellybean experiment of having students guess the number of jellybeans in a jar. The group’s guess was 850; the actual number of jellybeans was 871. The number of people who did better than the group: 1 out of 56. “Generally, no one person is smarter than the collective wisdom of the group,” said Surowiecki.

In another example, Surowiecki made reference to the TV show, Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? whereby contestants can get help in answering a question by phoning an “expert” friend in a particular subject, or polling the audience. The friend gets it right 65 percent of the time. The audience: 91 percent. “Even as problems get more complicated, we can see this phenomenon take place,” Surowiecki said.
To make crowds smarter, and to take advantage of the collective wisdom of crowds, Surowiecki mentioned three things that are needed:

1. A tool or method to aggregate lots of individual judgments into a collective one. Aggregation matters.
2. Diversity — The more diverse the group, the better the decisions it will make, and the less likely that everyone in the crowd will make the same mistake. The errors people make will cancel themselves out. Diversity should expand beyond background and experience to cognitive diversity, which relates to how a person represents a problem and solves a problem.
3. Independence — People like to think of themselves as independent thinkers, but oftentend to follow the imitation route. Imitation can be rational, easy, and safe, but if everyone is imitating, they’re not tapping into the wisdom of crowds. Genuine disagreement is needed for the wisdom of crowds to emerge.

Surowiecki reminded the audience that knowledge is often located in places they may not usually consider. “So look beyond the surface when you think about who should be among the crowd.” Attendees buzzed about the need for expanding our traditional “crowds” and tapping into the larger group’s wisdom.

What Gossip Girl Has Taught (and Reaffirmed For) Me About Sharing Knowledge

I recently received (and accepted) an offer for an exciting KM gig and that's kept me pretty occupied for the last few weeks so I haven't gotten around to doing much blogging. many articles last week. On top of that, when I haven't been interviewing, negotiating the offer, or apartment hunting online I've been sitting on my duff religiously watching the US Open and working on increasing my ability points on my new Facebook obsession, "My Heroes Ability".

Anywho, I haven't put much thought into my latest blog topic (though I'm sure the next few weeks will bring much blog-worthy activity) and I wasn't quite sure what to write about, but then something happened that was more compelling than hours upon hours of tennis, more nerve-wracking than apartment hunting via Craigslist, and yes, even more exciting than my new job offer.

Season two of Gossip Girl.

When the first season of my current pop culture fetish came to a close, I had hoped that immersing myself in ALTA and USTA tennis and hanging out in our rooftop 'japoozi' admiring Atlanta's cityscape would be enough to stave off the sadness of being without the weekly exploits of my fictional Upper East Side set.

Then I got it into my head to commemorate my affection for GG by writing a KM-related post about the show, but the untimely passing of my friend Fiona zapped pretty much any desire in me to do anything more than just get through each day.

However, now that my spirits are higher and I'm back on track with my blog and - praise Comcast! - GG is back on the telly, since I haven't prepared anything else worth blogging about, I thought I'd celebrate the return of my favorite guilty pleasure with a little light reading on what Gossip Girl has taught (and reaffirmed for) me about KM.

In true Adult Ed fashion I am a firm believer that every experience, relationship, situation, and tele-drama provides a teachable moment and learning opportunity, if only we're willing (and bent enough) to see it.

For the uninitiated, Gossip Girl is a popular TV Show, based on the NY Times bestselling series of the same name, that chronicles the lives of the young elite of New York's Upper East Side. At first glance, it hardly seems KM worthy, but when you consider the meteoric adoption rates (and out of the box usage) of social networking technologies by the show's characters (and demo audience) and adjust your perspective of the show's titular character from gossip columnist to an SME (subject-matter-expert) who manages knowledge and information on and about her "subject", then it's not difficult to see some valid take-aways.

When I initially had the idea to write this post one of the articles among that week's reads discussed a study of how young adult's consumed news and the way in which today's youth is bombarded by news they can't adequately process: "Today's youth receive their news from far more sources than older people, consuming modern media from "online video, blogs, online social networks, mobile devices, RSS, word of mouth, Web portals and search engines," according to the study findings. This glut of technological news sources has led consumers to experience an "imbalance in their news diet," specifically trouble keeping up with news stories that went on too long or were too in-depth.

The AP study can be found here.

While I challenge the idea that young adults are suffering from "newstritional disorder" as the Time's article suggests, (it's interesting to note here that, one, the study's primary focus is on how young adults access the news, not how they process it, and, two, the study has a very narrow definition of what is "news" and what young adults consider "news"), as a Knowledge Manager, I've certainly seen the problem of information overload with knowledgebases and content management systems. In this sense, access to too much information, coming at you from all directions, tends to turn users off to using the system entirely. The core of the problem lies with information managers and/or producers either disregarding or misunderstanding the information needed/desired and the way(s) in which their target audience shares and consumes information.

In its depiction of how young adults manage information, I think Gossip Girl certainly debunks the Times' pessissm. Furthermore, I think as people of all ages become more comfortable with technology that has become increasingly more inclusive...more plug-n-play, if you will...that they are taking more control over the information they consume, process, and share. The challenge then, for news and information providers, is to improve their target marketing strategies. In fact, Louise Druce, Editor of KnowledgeBoard.com, published an article on 'Target Marketing Through KM' just a few weeks ago).

Most importantly, I've learned (and been reminded) from Gossip Girl that when it comes to sharing knowledge and information, people will participate when the knowledge is meaningful to them, when both the knowledge and the act of sharing has value, and when they are free to use the tools that are most convenient to them

Gossip-Girl-as-knowledge-manager isn't just some all-knowing narrator that guides viewers through each episode. Though anonymous, she is an active character who serves as a valued information resource for the other characters, who, in return, participates in the knowledge sharing cycle by contributing to the body of information that GG manages, demonstrating both the culture of sharing and the value perceived in sharing. For her part, GG builds the credibility of her role as a knoweldge manager by managing, organizing, delivering, and validating "contributed content" (in the way one would expect from a primtime soap).

Of course, it might seem that her success and popularity is attributable purely to the often scandalous nature of the information she's sharing, I mean, people love to dish the dirt and, heck, even parents go to Gossip Girl to get the inside track on what's happening with their children and their children's friends. However, whether your pedaling the latest society dirt or spreadsheets replete with financial data, sharing is sharing!

1. Sharing when the knowledge is meaningful
Knowledge that is meaningful is relevant, it serves a purpose. This isn't knowledge for the sake of knowledge. This is knowledge that has an impact on a person's life, job, role or position. If people can't clearly identify the need or if you have to create meaning for them, odds are good that your knowledge sharing efforts will be for naught
2. Sharing when both the knowledge and the act of sharing has value
It's pretty obvious that knowledge or information considered valuable will be regarded as a commodity. People will want it, pursue it, hoarde it, and use it to achieve their goals. That's a no-brainer. What I find intriguing is the value placed on the act of sharing. This is a topic of much interest to KM professionals because understanding what motivates folks to share (e.g., peer pressure, self-interest, keeping up with Joneses, trendsetting, accountability, acquiring a sense of power and authority, etc.) is key to improving participation in knowledge sharing efforts. In my opinion, any perceived value of knowledge is secondary to the perception of the value of sharing. Why? For one, it's important to maintain the sharing-cycle even when the knowledge being shared is of little or no value; two, sometimes it's the process of sharing itself which gives knowledge value; and, three, knowledge only has value when it's used, 'sitting on it' merely renders it moot.
3. Sharing when free to use the tools that are most convenient
The Times' articles was absolutely correct that the modern information age provides far more media channels than the days of 'yore', but rather than being confusing and distracting, it simply provides a variety of options for content/information/knowledge managers to reach your audience...and for them to reach you! Not only does GG reach her audience via the web and a host of mobile applications, but her audience utilizes the same technology to share information with GG. Now, that's not a call to exploit the full range of available technologies in your KM endeavors. One of the biggest hurdles to KM efforts is the insistence of so many KM implementers on introducing new technology in conjunction with their KM iniative rather than relying upon the use of existing technologies with which folks are already comfortable. After all, one of your goals should be to reduce as many barriers to sharing as possible. Instead, consider incorporating existing practices/process for sharing knowledge and introducing new ways of using "old" tech.

Out of The Box - Week Ending 8/22

This week is dedicated to the letters 'K' for krazy and 'P' for patience, because that's what you need when life gets krazy, hahaha.

Sadly, with the exception of Kanye West's BeKanye advert, I had nothing too interesting in the way of celebrity gossip and I usually reserve camping out on Page Six and New York Social Diary for the days when my desk isn't covered in paper (since I can spend hours researching the social elite and their - sometimes sketchy, sometimes impressive, and always entertaining - ways.

Anyway, this week's 'Out of The Box' reads were a total mixed bag.

• Yet another article supporting the reason organizations need KM. Looking for a way to survive a talent shortage, consider including succession planning and knowledge transfers strategies(Training/Coaching/Mentoring) into your KM initiatives.
• The days of schmoozing clients may be over for sales-folks, but it can't hurt KM professionals looking to build social capital within their organizations.
• 'How To' of the Week: How to Hypermile


• Beacon wasn't such hit for Facebook, but can something like it help you to understand the users of your knowledgebase?
• Companies today seem to go overboard to stop employees from griping publicly, but knowing what is being said about your organization, inside and out, is part of managing knowledge too.
• Cool site: e-BIM enables you to share with your peers a method, a solution, a proven best practice that solves your specific problems when you need it solved. It's easy. It's fast. It's free.

'Green' KM?

It's official, I have achieved Olympic burnout. After watching the Games non-stop on three channels, day and night, I've just gotta catch some zzzz's. I'm still trying to watch some of the Track and Field events, but no more qualifiers and heats for me...gimme the medal action only so I can finally get rid of these bags under my eyes!!!

Anywho, a few months back I was interviewing for a KM spot with a design firm when I was asked about my familiarity with working in a 'green' environment. I haven't had the chance to work in such an environment and I wondered if, for the purpose of KM, it really even mattered. I mean, when I think of a 'green' environment, off the top of my head I think about making the workspace environmentally friendly (recycling bins, oxygenating plants, maybe a little feng shui in the layout of the space). Integrating a 'green' approach into a design philosophy? I can see that, but 'green' KM?

Then, a couple of weeks ago, I was reading some random article on organizational ecology and I wondered if this was (or somehow related to) 'green' KM.

Fingers tapping on the desk...still wondering.

So then, I started working on this post and, originally, I was just looking to explore possible connections between organizational ecology and 'green' philosophies and the implications of being 'green' on KM. But, when I really got into it, I started to realize the potential value of taking a 'green' approach to the implementation of a KM strategy, much in the same I've utlized a 'guerilla' approach in past assignments.

While there seems to be plenty of wrong ways to implement a KM strategy, I certainly don't believe that there is any one right way. It all boils down to the type of culture your dealing with and who you are as a Knowledge Manager. And now I'm eager to explore other socio-political approaches to "selling" KM to an organization and achieving cultural buy-in and adoption. I'll be sure to post here as I discover them.

The 'green' movement - so you don't have to open a new tab and google it - revolves around the promotion of an ecosophy and the adoption/application of environmentally responsible practices and behaviors in order to protect and respect our natural environment. These practices can include using alternative energy and fuels, green building and remodeling materials and practices, organic and natural foods, natural medicine and health, hybrid and electric cars and motorcycles, forestry management, natural body care, recyclable carpet and clothing, eco-friendly diapers, wind-powered appliances, solar water heating and much more.

Politically speaking, Greens, focus on ecological and environmental issues, as well as civil rights and social justice.

So, can KM be 'green'? I'm starting to think yes! In his Lifehack article, Getting Green Done, Dustin Wax suggests that David Allen’s Getting Things Done: The Art of Stress-Free Productivity is a good guide to Green living "since the principles of Green living are not all that different from the principles we use to help us be more productive."

He goes on to propose these 6 Principles of Green Living:

1. Simplicty: more stuff means more complexity — more upkeep, more keeping track, more things to do.
2. Fairness: we consume so much because we can — and we can because we don’t deal fairly with everyone involved.
3. Community: too much of our world market is out of sight, and therefore out of mind.
4. Sustainability: a system is sustainable when the negative outputs of that system are accommodated and turned into positive outputs. most of our global production is not sustainable!
5. Planning: planning means looking ahead towards a desired outcome; it also means thinking a little bit about the community that isn’t here yet and dealing fairly with them. creating sustainability requires planning!
6. Transparency:decisions these days are made behind closed doors. a green society requires the active involvement of all its participants!

By the by, I encourage EVERYONE to read this article. Not only will it provide more context for these principles, but it's a quick read that will give you something to think about.

Dustin sums up his manifesto with a potent declaration to those who are truly committed to going 'green': "...we can’t do all the work. We can’t even do a tiny fraction of the work. We can suggest, prod, provide tricks and hacks, but in the end, you’re going to have to make some decisions, to think about how your actions fit in with you values, whatever they are."

This statement, which echoes current KM crush Heifetz's views on adaptive leadership, applies equally to the person(s) responsible for developing and implementing KM strategies and the organizational community (both the leadership and the rank-and-file). Ironically, this seems to be one of the biggest challenges for organizations, not just with KM, but with any initiative that seems to clash with or challenge the bottom-line goal of profit. Unfortunately, "profit" is not a value. Although, perhaps organizations need to take a look at what they're willing to do (actions) in the pursuit of profit and how well it squares up with their actual values.

Now, let's apply these principles to KM! And, there's no real order to these, just keep them in mind as you're developing your strategy.

Simplicty
I'm sure most folks are familiar with the KISS methodology - 'Keep It Simple Stupid'. Greens would equate this to measuring and, subsequently reducing, your ecological footprint, which is the impact you have on the natural environment. In terms of KM, I define it as being stealthy and minimally invasive in your KM efforts. One of the ways I attempt to achieve this is by integrating existing technologies that work, rather than trying to introduce a radical new technology or process. When new processes are necessary, recognize and appreciate the potential for disruption, and roll them out in steps.

Fairness
Almost all of the KM strategies I've been involved with and have discussed with folks are developed, exclusively, from the perspective of the organization and seen as a benefit to the organization and, subsequently, to employees who live to see another paycheck, but a 'green' approach invites you to take a closer look at your strategy and ask (1) how well it acknowledges the true value - to the holder - of the knowledge/information you're asking folks to share and, (2) what your true intentions are with regards to that knowledge/information. It's one thing to say knowledge sharing doesn't diminish an individuals value to the organization, but do you really mean it and do your policies/practices actually support this statement? Be honest, because if you're not sure, then it's likely your employees don't believe it either and that will result in a poor knowledge sharing community or, at best, an immature one.

This is why I preach the merits of KM participation as a means of developing one's Personal Competitive Advantage (PCA). I believe it's critical to help an organization's workers/employees become aware of what this is and how they can and should develop theirs. Being aware of the real value of one's knowledge and the personal benefit of knowledge sharing can only enhance KM efforts. Moreover, organizations that want to remain competitive need to quit "shuckin' and jivin'" and start dealing more fairly with their workers in terms of salary and work-life balance. Contrary to popular opinion, the rank-and-file aren't stupid; they simply give as good as they get. Which, when you think about it is pretty smart; why sweat blood and tears for a business you don't own, that has no loyalty to you, so that someone else can get rich? It's appalling how little regard people can have for others in pursuit of the almighty dollar. The bottom line: as long as your bottom-line is money, don't expect your KM efforts to bear anywhere near the kind of fruit they could be bearing if your bottom-line was people (and that means people other than you, lol.)

Community
Get in the trenches! I know that I'm in love with my knowledge audit and not everyone does one (or, necessarily, needs to) but I'll be damned if it isn't the ever-lovin' dumbest thing in the whole wide world to come up with a strategy from on high at a distance.

Or, maybe that's just how I see it.

After all, I tend to see knowledge management as community development, so I can't understand for a minute how, on Earth, someone could come up with a strategy to develop a community without getting in the trenches with said community. Knowledge management is dependent upon sharing information and resources in community. for this to happen people need to develop relationships with one another predicated on mutual trust, respect, and recognition of their interdependence; the Knowledge Manager should be a force for building that type of community. And, by doing so you can greater insight into how your KM strategy will be most effective.

Sometimes perspective makes all the difference.

Sustainability
Truly, Dustin says it best:

A system is sustainable when the negative outputs of that system are accommodated and turned into positive outputs. Think about your working life — if you weren’t getting paid, would you work so hard? Your hard work — a negative thing — is converted into something positive — a paycheck. Your employer turns the negative output — paying more money — into a positive input — increased revenue. The system sustains itself — or it collapses. If you aren’t getting paid enough, you quit working hard, revenues shrink, the employer goes out of business. Or they start putting in more and more inputs; using military forces to compel labor is not unheard of. Eventually those systems collapse too, when the cost of maintaining them outweighs the benefits produced by them. And they often collapse violently. Most of our global production is not sustainable.

It's not enough to develop and implement a KM strategy, it needs to be sustainable beyond anyone acting in an official Knowledge Manager capacity. In order for that to happen, it needs to accommodate the negative outputs of the organization (knowledge hoarding, fears of diminished value, layoffs/downsizing, change fatigue, working more for less, etc.) and turn them into a positive output (increased Personal Competitive Advantage, ease of access to information needed to complete your job, better workplace relationships, stronger market position of the company which must lead to increased financial rewards for everyone, less stressful work environment, improved work-life balance, etc.).

Ask yourself, how long your organization's formal KM strategy would last if the KM team were no more and what it would take for your answer to be 'indefinitely', then make it so.

Planning
As Dustin writes, "creating sustainability requires planning".

I'm reminded here of work I've done establishing mission and vision statements. The mission is what you intend to do; it describes your goals and purpose, your intentions. The vision describes what you'd like to achieve; what the results of your efforts might look like in some utopian future.

The mission is more matter of fact while the vision doesn't necessarily have to be realistic or achievable. In fact, some believe it should have a certain unattainable utopian quality to it, representing the highest ideal and providing a lofty goal to aspire to.

The combination of mission and vision is what drives an organizations goals from quarter-to-quarter, year-to-year.

Planning a susttained, strategic KM initiative should follow similar guidelines.

Operate in the present with your eye on the future, thinking in terms of changes and innovations in technology, the workforce, politics, market forces, the environment, and social movements and the impact on your organization and how you might respond strategically.

Here, I like to think of the impact of file sharing on the music industry. I remember back in the mid-90's when Blockbuster was large-and-in-charge with both music and video stores and they had announced a plan to burn CD's in-store, allowing customers to buy both regular and custom CD's, charging by the song. And then, without explanation, the plan fell through, most likely because the larger recording industry wanted to control the market as much as possible to generate as much profit as possible.

The result: within three years file-sharing had become rampant. And, within ten years, despite a lot of those early lawsuits against universities average Jo-ann college student, file sharing has become the norm and you can hardly find a store that deals exclusively in CD's and records.

The lesson: Change is inevitable no matter how much you want to be in control or "manage" things. Trying to maintain too much control might just cost you big in the long run. Sometimes all you can do is keep an eye on the future and have a plan for riding the wave. The good news is that forward-thinking organizations who keep up with the trends are often able to capitalize on them and set a few of their own.

Transparency
Two years ago, I was interviewing for a consulting job with IBM and - no lie - I was asked to give the most convoluted, technical definition of knowledge management that I could come up with.

I couldn't believe it.

Especially since, after years of having to explain KM as simply as possible to professors and classmates...my family...I sorta prided myself on being able to keep things simple and create some sort of understanding of what KM is (loosely speaking) and what it can do.

Idealism aside, transparency in business isn't always feasible and often many stakeholders are asked to participate in the operation of an organization with limited knowledge and involvement. Like it or not, "sometimes it be's like that", hahaha. However, KM doesn't have to be one of the areas where transparency is an issue, particularly if you're dealing with change fatigue and a general suspicion about what KM is and its impact on an individuals value to the organization. As a self-professed authoritarian, I understand that many times it isn't that we can't bring everyone into the decision-making process, we just don't want to drag the process out by being overly democratic.

But guess what? Cultural changes are made and driven by the culture. Ya-huh.

Besides, the goal here isn't so much to give everyone a say and put every decision up for a vote, it's to adopt a protocol for sharing information that supports full disclosure. After all, it's the responsibility of each stakeholder to make themselves aware of what's going on with KM, but it's the Knowledge Manager's responsibility to make that information available, accessible, and digestable (understood) and provide a vehicle for responding to any and all questions, concerns, and comments. It's this approach that promotes and develops community which promotes sustainability.

So, whodathunk it, 'green' KM.

Now, I've got that line from the G.I. Joe PSA's that used to air after each episode stuck in my head: "Now we know!" "And knowing is half the battle."

So funny.

Out of The Box - Week Ending 8/15

Has this week flown by or what?? My only complaint is that I've got bags under my eyes from staying up late watching as much Olympics coverage as I can coax out of my telly. Well, I do have one other complaint, about the Olympics: is it too much to ask to see a little more tennis coverage? I'm reeling from the losses of the Williams sisters and Fed, but can we see anything more than swimming, gymnastics, and boxing (that's on one of the 24-7 cable channels every time I fip over to it). Kudos to Michael Phelps though, always a pleasure to watch dolphin-boy tread water. And, passport or no, is it obvious to anyone else that at least two of the Chinese gymnasts are just out of Huggies?!?!?!

Quite coincidentally this week's reads seemed to provide a variety of ideas for KM practitioners looking to branch out into independent consulting or to expand your practice if you're already doing your own thing, as well as innovative marketing and branding tactics.

• Idea #1: Teach a KM class.
• WTF of the Week: Spray-on condoms!?!?!?! Uhh, okay.
• Idea #2: Conduct KM audits as supplements to business valuations.

• Strategm: Develop Your Competitive Advantage: In this whiteboard video, Erica Olsen lays out why you should define your competitive advantage and how to do it.

• Innovative Marketing Technique: How to Make Money Off of Free iPhone Games

Adaptive Leadership & My New KM Crush

OR, "Is It Time To Take Over The World Yet, Brain?"

Okay, so I'm trying to get into the groove of this whole, weekly blogging thing. Ironically, I'm crazy busy right now (still) trying to launch a city-wide KM survey all on my lonesome and planning a fundraising tourney for 2009, in addition to all that other stuff I do everyday (work, tennis...iron Emilie's linen garments), so you'd think I'd have little to no time to blog, but I suppose my thoughts are also racing and blogging is helping a bit to keep me focused.

Anyway, I was doing some follow-up research on ROWE earlier this week, first reading about why ROWE sucks and then how ROWE Aims to "Rock the Workplace Boat". It was in the latter article that I got stuck on (ROWE creators) Cali Ressler & Jody Thompson's comments on adaptive change vs. technical change and started googling "adaptive change" to get more insight into the theory. That search brought me to the transcript of a 1999 interview with Professor Ronald Heifetz who spoke on the subject.

Professor Heifetz, author of the best-selling "Leadership Without Easy Answers", is billed as one of the world's leading authorities on leadership. He is the founding director of the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. He's also a physician, a cellist, and, after reading this transcript, my new KM crush.

Awwwwww.

Though I'm fond of being the quirky oddball (you've got to keep a sense of humor if you want to make it in this world, period, let alone the business world), one of my core values, personally and professionally, is the development of human beings into their potential - spiritually, intellectually, and socially. Every situation is an opportunity to learn and learning is how we grow. Unfortunately, in a society that increasingly places money, "things"/possessions, and a quality of living that is exclusive, rather than inclusive above respect for life, the environment which life requires for sustenance, education and basic human dignity, I'm often left to wonder how the human race continues to thrive......I'm trying to think of a funny joke to support that statement, but the ones I typically use are either highly inappropriate, even for this blog, or just plain sad.

Anyway, the need to find creative avenues to promote and create change in how we perceive the value and worth of people - beyond their ability to make a profit, sell a product, or entertain us - and, subsequently, help people develop into their potential, is one of the primary reasons I was attracted to knowledge management. This is in the spirit of one of my literary crushes, Audre Lorde, and her call to forge new tools with which to create true change in the world.

So, when I have the opportunity to learn from folks whose message is revolutionary in its simplicity and application, folks like author and educator Parker Palmer who teaches in (one of my favorite books) "To Know As We Are Known: Education As A Spiritual Journey" that the origin of knowledge is love, whose message is revolutionary in its simplicity and application, I am inspired to improve myself as a student, a teacher, a professional, and a person.

I'm still swimming in the pool of Professor Heifetz's ideas a little too deeply to string together the best words to effectively present why I'm 'feeling' them so much, but I'll do my best (otherwise, what's the point of this blog!?!?!).

Professor Heifetz's theory of adaptive change is rooted in the principles of evolutionary biology wherein an organism makes determinations about what DNA to keep, what to discard, and what to build as it responds - adapts - to its ever changing environment. Likewise, organizations must make similar determinations with regards to business/cultural practices, processes, and products. Not rocket science, I know, but Heifetz goes on to highlight the importance of conservation - holding on to what works - in this process, and how frequently it is overlooked.

Leadership then, in Heifetz's words, is about the mobilization of adaptive work, rather than transformational change; "(E)ngaging people to make progress on the adaptive problems they face". In this regard, adaptive leadership is not, as I learned, unlike being a facilitator: helping folks to identify the challenge(s), creating an environment in which challenges can be resolved, providing tools and resources to assist in resolution efforts, enabling/empowering folks to be problem solvers, but not taking on the responsibility and burden of resolving the challenge(s) for them. "In adaptive problems, the people themselves are the problem; the solution, therefore, lies within them. If they don't change their ways, then you have no solution - all you have is a proposal." Considering that we live in a country (for those of us in the USA) in which too many folks are all too willing to throw their collective hands up and declare "you can't fight city hall" or "one vote won't make a difference" despite the fact that collectively we ARE the government, you can see how this process can be a challenge in and of itself. Still, I think it's spot on and overdue.

"The challenge with adaptive work, in biology and in organizational life, is to figure out how to capitalize on history without being enslaved by it."

This is an area that I work hard to address in my KM work and one that I often see ignored and disregarded. I stress, repeatedly, that regardless if the term KM is used in an organization or whether or not a documented strategy for managing knowledge/information exists, there is no such thing as an organization that does not have a KM strategy. Understanding in what form that strategy exists and how it exists, how it lives in an organization and is embodied in the culture is key to determining what is and isn't working and what innovations should be considered in helping the organization achieve its KM goals. This approach also makes KM less arcane to the organization and understanding lessens the fear and apprehension associated with change.

Although, after reading this piece, perhaps I should re-think how I use word 'fear' with regards to change. As Professor Heifetz states,

"The aphorism that is commonly bandied about is "people resist change," or "change frightens people." I think that’s wrong. I think that when people win the lottery and win a million dollars, or ten million dollars, they know their life is going to be enormously changed and they welcome that change. They don’t give the money back. Change is hard when it represents the possibility of loss. It’s the possibility of loss, and the apprehension, fear, and anxiety associated with that possibility of loss that generates resistance."

Heifetz goes on to discuss the lack of appreciation and respect given to "the pain of change".

I'm pretty sure I've been a capital 'A' ass at times in my efforts to penetrate organizational cultures and spread the 'good word of KM'. And, God only knows how many Pinky-and-the-Brain hours I've spent developing KM branding strategies. I even have a name for it, Guerilla KM. All of this, of course, isn't meant to intentionally disrespect "the pain of change", but, like many aggresive change strategies, it's predicated on the idea that those whose behavior I'm trying to change, are mostly lazy, selfish, self-interested, narrow-minded, stuck in the past, unsavvy, control freaks. In my defense, however, I do begin my KM branding efforts (Plan A) by educating folks on the relevance of KM to what they do.

Then I get my 'Brain' on.

Once decisions have been made about what to keep, discard, and where to innovate, Heifetz suggests the need for leaders (who themselves must have an experimental mindset) to "mobilize people for a set of innovative experiments," the goal of which is to "graft onto the best of the organizational DNA so that the organization can thrive in the future."

Heifetz makes a lot of really cool points (at least, in my mind they're cool) and you can read some of his thoughts here, here, and here. Ultimately, the goal of adaptive change and adaptive leadership is to "move people from an entrenched set of investments with an entrenched set of loyalties to a more curious, adventuresome, experimental mindset. Then, they are more willing to entertain opposing points of view without feeling that their most precious set of values are going to be lost in the process. With the faith in themselves that they can find and then hold onto what is most essential."

As knowledge managers, we can save ourselves a lot of grief and anxiety by understanding and addressing the actual needs of our organizations and heeding Heifetz's call to an adaptive leadership. Interestingly enough, even with this approach, you'll still get to be the cool kid problem solver. Holla!

I've got to get out of the office to get to a tennis match, so, I'll close with Professor Heifetz's 5 Principles of Leadership from "Leadership Without Easy Answers".

1. Identify the adaptive challenge (the issues, values and stakes).
2. Keep the level of distress within a tolerable range so that the group can do its adaptive work.
3. Focus attention on ripening issues, not on distractions.
4. Give the work back to the people, but at a rate they can handle.
5. Protect the voices of leadership in the community that are without authority.

Welcome to my crush crew Doc!

Out of The Box - Week Ending 8/8

I think this has to be the first time in ages that I've usd the phrase "Thank-God-It's-Friday", but this has been a totally 'OMG TGIF' kinda week! (I sound like I'm 12.)

Though work was unusually uninspiring, this week's readings hit the spot.

• From "Harnessing the Energy of Change Champions" to recognizing that "People Don’t Hate Change, They Hate How You’re Trying to Change Them", change seemed to be an industry-crossing theme.
• Chuckle of the Week: Powermascara Will Oscillate Your Beautiful Brains Out
• Tips For Your KM Tool-kit: Engaging Undiscussable Issues - Excerpt: "Handling an undiscussable requires an approach similar to how one would greet any formidable creature - use caution, show respect and exercise skill. Here are a few tips for how to approach the moose, gorilla or elephant in your organization.
• Cool Tool: Maintain and update all of your profiles across the web from one account with Atomkeep (with thanks to Social Web Tools)
• Logging On To Beat The Bullies, using KM software to report and record instances of school bullying in the UK.
• Small Business Advocate: Harmony built on trust in business - Excerpt: "Someone once said, 'Friends we choose, family we're stuck with.' But what about business relationships; we certainly get to choose those, don't we? So why are there dysfunctional businesses?"

ROWE v. Young: Work-Model of the Knowledge Economy?

OR, "Is This The Revolution I Ordered?"

"You say you want a revolution
Well you know we all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world..."

Okay, this work-week has been horribly dull. It's only Wednesday and instead of enjoying my usual hump day revelry I feel like I'm just listening to the ticks of the clock, waiting for the whistle to blow.

I did discover yesterday that my dream of living in a hobbit house is fully realizable - if I'm willing to move to Oregon. That would be a resounding 'No, thanks', but it had me all giddy, nonetheless. (Clearly the venture wouldn't be going belly up if it had been developed closer to the North Georgia Mountains).

Anyway, I suppose my pitiful work-state is the perfect occasion to post my thoughts on ROWE.

For the last week I've been reading and thinking about results-only (results-oriented) work environments and the implications of/on KM.

ROWE, for the uninitiated, is based on the idea of each person being free "to do whatever they want, whenever they want as long as the work gets done". The line of thought being that, especially in our increasingly tech savvy world, as long as folks are able to get their work done, they shouldn't have to be tied down to a specific location or for a specific period of time.

I came across an article on ROWE a little more than two months ago and my immediate response was, "hell yeah". I mean, this week is a perfect example. Are there things I could be doing in the office? Suuure. Do I need to be here for 8 hours a day doing these things? Noooo, not really, but try explaining that to my boss.

Anyway, while my immediate reaction was all, "hell yeah, right on, turn it up", I started thinking about the impact of ROWE on KM and vice versa and, well, to be honest, the jury is still out.

Right off the top ROWE clearly seems perfectly suited for knowledge intensive businesses and professionals - lawyers, engineers, consultants, and salespeople for example. In fact, you could argue that these folks have utilized this concept in some way, shape, or form for years before the concept of ROWE. However (and I'm thinking about my dad and his peers here), this is also during a time when knowledge hoarding was rampant and completely OOC and it wasn't uncommon to leave for a business trip on Monday working as a consultant or a sales guy for Big Blue and come back on Friday working in a similar capacity for Microsoft.

I'm not, by any stretch of the imagination, arguing against ROWE by suggesting that it will lead to employee turnover and disloyalty. On the contrary, I'm sure it could become a source of tremendous employee loyalty. I can't help but wonder, though, how successful ROWE is in organizations with a strategic KM initiative in place versus those without one. And, for organizations adopting ROWE without a formal KM strategy, how much more difficult will future KM efforts be?

It seems to me that, in the long-run, a successful ROWE implementation is dependent upon having both a strategic KM initative and a strong resource management solution. I don't think that KM is necessary to introduce ROWE to an organization, but, from a KM perspective, I don't know if I would approve of ROWE without it. For no other reason than it puts more pressure on "capture" component of KM. If an organization is already struggling with identifying and capturing information, ROWE is hardly going to make things easier, even though the demand for having access to and sharing critical knowledge and information will be bananas. And yes, it's possible that transitioning to ROWE could help stress the importance of KM, but that's kinda like recognizing the need for a fire extinguisher while your house is burning down.

On the flip side, adopting ROWE in an organization that has had some success with KM is a great way to demonstrate the value of knowledge management. Clearly, other success factors have to be taken into consideration (culture and leadership, for example), but having a managed strategy in place to coordinate a disparate, mobile, results-oriented workforce seems key to me.

I'm just saying!

Anyway, I still have questions about ROWE that I'd need to answer before I'm able to come to a comfortable conclusion on the concept (i.e., What are other organizations besides Best Buy that have had success deploying ROWE?, Does ROWE encourages employees to go above and beyond the call of duty? Or, is it better suited to the more ambitious employees?), but one thing that excites me about ROWE is its potential to become the work-model/management theory of the knowledge economy. Heck, I'm pretty sure that many of the strongest ROWE doubters are fierce adherents of Taylorism.

That is, assuming ROWE is about more than just working flex hours.

See, that's where I get stuck on the fence. I mean, ROWE was conceived as way of enabling folks to work in a manner/place/time-frame that best reflects their strengths, which, results in increased productivity and efficiency, then yeah, I'm down with that. And, I can see where this type of work environment not only promotes work-life balance, but has the potential to take the gloves off for what an employee can do in an organization and professionally, in general. Not the least by re-conceptualizing work and our cultural attitude about work - transitioning work from something you do to live, to something you live to do; because you enjoy it and because it gives you purpose, sense of self, opportunity respect...you fill in the blank.

Clarification: It may seem as if I'm saying folks can't change their concept about work on their. Not true. But our society, as a whole, does perpetuate a negative attitude about/towards work that is linked to competitiveness, issues of trust, equality, fairness, entitlement, and an overemphasis on the accumulation of material wealth. This behavior is learned and reinforced in the home, the classroom, on the playground, in church, and in the workplace. In the face of this cultural programming it's not only understandable that most people don't like 'work', it's almost suprising when folks do!

I think that having a new way of working goes a long way towards reconceptualizing attitudes about work. I once wrote a paper championing the idea of allowing employees, within an established budget and over and above any universally necessary org training (e.g., software training), to choose their own T&D/skill-building activities. The idea being that people are better able to learn from activities that matter to them and which they enjoy on a personal level. For their part, each employee must be able to share with their department and/or the larger organization (in their own way/words) what relevant lessons they were able to draw from their chosen activity. When I think about the potential of ROWE, this ability to make work meaningful, enjoyable...personal, beyond a paycheck, is what comes to mind.

However, if it's just about flex hours, mehhh, I'd be disappointed. I'd still see some value to overall work-life balance in ROWE, but I'm looking for a revolution not a reprieve.

Out of The Box - Week Ending 8/1

This morning, while doing some research on results-oriented work environments, I was inspired by Rosetta Thurman's 'The Friday Four' on her Perspectives From The Pipeline blog to throw a bit of weekly 'blurb' blogging onto my own site.

Every week I sift through dozens of miscellaneous articles and blogs which inspire thoughts and ideas on KM (and about a dozen more that serve no other purpose than to entertain me with a hearty helping of junk media).

So, while my lunch is heating up in the break-room (clearly not taking Rosetta's add-on advice to the BBC News Magazine article on how to make time to think; does it count if I blog while I eat lunch at my desk?) here's a list of the things that had me thinking out of the box this week (and tickled my funny bone)!

• Get Creative! Author and marketing and innovation consultant, Cynthia Barton Rabe, introduces the concept of 'zero-gravity thinkers' as a means of promoting creativity and rejuvenating the way organizations think. Rabe defines zero-gravity thinkers "as people
  who have psychological distance from the company or team, people who have Renaissance tendencies...'who think broadly and out of the box on a regular basis'".

• Cool Tool: Evernote (with thanks to C.C. Chapman)

• 11 Habits of the Worst Boss I Ever Had: A Manifesto of Poor Leadership from entrepreneur David Silverman.

• Celebrity Quote of The Week: "If you notice, since Britney started wearing clothes and behaving, Paris is out of town not bothering anybody anymore - thank God - and evidently Lindsay Lohan has gone gay, we don't seem to have much of an issue." – Los Angeles police chief William Bratton, linking a decline in problems with paparazzi to the good behavior of several high-profile celebrities, to KNBC-TV

• Tapping the Creativity of Downtime: Excerpted..."In its early days, Chris Wallace's company didn't always have enough work to keep its staff fully occupied designing interactive Web sites for clients. But it didn't want to lose any talent. So he and his co-founders decided to tell employees they could pursue their own interests in their downtime, doing just about whatever they wanted, on the clock."

KM: The First 90 Days

NOTE: Not 10 minutes after publishing this post I hopped over to Green Chameleon to get my weekly 'fix' and sure enough there was a post (from Monday) on Cory Bank's First 180 Days. Now that's synchronicity! Take a moment to check out Cory's 'Corz and Effect' blog. (8/31/08)

Yesterday, I was working on a blog post for another topic, thinking about the process of selling KM, when it came to me (through a series of incidental thoughts) how the thing that would have been most helpful to me with my earlier positions in KM would have been a plan for my first 90 days on the job.

Hindsight is 20/20, unless the alcohol blurs the details or you just don't want to remember, but I do recall, several times, starting out and wishing that I'd had more direction...more strategic objectives...to kick-off my KM efforts (and make me look like less of a bumbling idiot).

In one position, I remember receiving my 90-day evaluation and, despite having completed all of the documented goals that had been set, being taken to task for not acheiving a bunch of unspoken expectations (both of me and KM). Following this experience, I came to realize...okay, immediately following this experience I was looking crazy as hell, but several months down the road what I came to realize was the importance of truly owning a project - being thorough and ambitious in setting goals beyond, even, what might be formally agreed upon; reading between the lines and intuiting as much information as you can from what isn't said; and, most importantly, establishing yourself as the expert.

Nowadays, whenever I begin a KM project, I go in with two things (three, if you count my quirky personality): a KM roadmap, which I pass out like candy to everyone in the organization with even a passing interest, and my 90-Day Plan Checklist, which I keep taped (and hidden) inside the cover of my little notebook/planner. Regardless of what goals I may set with the person or people to which I report (these tend to be a bit on the conservative side), my checklist is on and poppin' and focused on the following goals:

Goals For The First 90 Days

• Market KM - Create a 'buzz' around the organization and build some interest, excitement...or both!
• Demonstrate your value to the organization - Reaffirm the organization's investment in and commitment to you!
• Develop a strategy - One that spells out both short-term and long-term KM goals!
• Produce a deliverable - At least one, but the more the better!

90-Day Checklist

1. Complete your Knowledge Audit
It's basic business sense that every good project begins with a good evaluation of the situation. A comprehensive knowledge audit provides all of the information needed for creating a KM strategy. Components of the audit include:

• Auditing existing knowledge assets, learning systems, organizational practices and behaviors
• Identifying and evaluating organizational needs and challenges
• Mapping knowledge flows (how information is shared across the organization)
• Understanding and setting expectations of KM
• Defining and documenting the scope and vision of/for KM
• Aligning KM strategy with business strategy; and,
• Achieving buy-in of the KM vision/scope

2. Know the political landscape and confirm at least 3-5 allies
Understanding the environment and the culture in which you are working is critical! There are so many 'X-Factors' that can jack up your KM efforts and a lot of them have to do with political forces that existed long before you came on board. Add to that any lingering change fatigue and the geneal uneasiness of either a new or resurrected strategy that might be perceived as a distraction from getting work done or a stab at someone's power base and you've got a potential hot potato on your hands.

By confirming at least 3-5 allies - people who understand and believe in what you're doing - you're beginning the process of building your own power base. And trust me, eventually you're gonna need it!

3. Convert 1 Skeptic
It's extremely rare not to have any naysayers. These are people who either don't believe in the utility or credibility of KM or who simply don't think you're up to the task. When faced with these folks resist the urge to tune them out. There's no better marketing tactic than turning your haters into supporters (even if it's begruding support). Just remember not to be to ambitious on this point. The deeper the cynicism, the more time involved in conversion; save your biggest critic for the next 90 days!

4. Complete your strategy blueprint
I tend to take a consultative approach to the interview process, so if and when I get a job it's usually based on the high-level strategy overview that I present to prospective employers (the result of early interviews and some deft research into the organization, its industry, and competitors). Because of this, I always have the shell of a strategy just waiting for the results of the knowledge audit. However, even if you're starting from scratch, after 90-Days (depending on the size of the organization) you should be ready to present a detailed strategy blueprint for review. You KM strategy blueprint should:

• Document and outline the KM/Change strategy
• Set goals and establish pre-implementation ROI metrics (e.g., Potential for improved performance, Estimated implementation costs, Worth analysis - verifies the worth of implementing KM/Change initiatives by comparing costs against potential outcomes)
• Define critical success factors and key performance indicators (KPIs)
• Identify, prioritize, and estimate functional requirements
• Document and outline branding strategy (Comprehensive marketing and training plans to support deployment)
• Design the KM team
• Identify the tools and resources needed to implement strategy
• Determine “build (internal) vs. buy (outsource)” with regards to KM applications/tools
• Evaluate availability and efficacy of both internal and external resources/tools

5. Market KM
If you ask me what I think are the three keys to a successful KM strategy I'll tell you this: (1) a knowledgeable, assertive, dedicated KM professional, (2) a committed, supportive, and invested organizational leadership, and (3) a rock-solid marketing plan.

KM has to be managed like a product - one that know one really understands and which folks are prematurely led to believe they won't like. Think about a movie that you are dead-set against going to see (maybe the reviews were bad, maybe the previews weren't flattering or appealing), but then someone drags you to see it and, surprise, you love it! That's exactly what you're dealing with and, with a kick-ass marketing plan and a smokin' KM strategy, hopefully the end results will be the same. (Note: All of the marketing in the world can't fix a bad strategy. Your marketing efforst will be for naught if, as author, entrepreneur and consulting guru Rob Ryan says, "the dogs will not eat the dog food.")

How do you market KM?

• Within your first week have HR or your boss email an announcement on your appointment with a brief description of your duties and background
• Hold one KM brown bag each month
• Claim some "real estate" on the corporate intranet site for KM messages and announcements
• Host a company 'networking' mixer for employees
• Establish and publish a weekly or bi-weekly e-newsletter highlighting current organizational activity (folks love to talk about themselves even if you have to spend time alternating between being Sherlock Holmes and Lois Lane)
• Establish and publish regular KM 'Impact' Reports which, rather than focusing on organizational activity, provide a brief summary of the economic (impact on the bottom line) and social (influence on the culture) results of KM efforts.

6. Solve a couple of minor problems and pluck some low-hanging fruit!
Lately, I've been hooked on the Facebook application, Mob Wars, the goal of which is to rise up the criminal ranks from petty criminal to head of a mafia empire (none of that Sonny Corinthos bubble-gum mafia for me!) Surprisingly, I'm addicted. The quickest way to make money, build experience, and move up is to complete relatively minor 'jobs' (muggings, burglary, liquor store robberies...that kind of stuff). Tackling 'low-hanging fruit' in your first 90-days is pretty much the same deal. Problems are identified easily during routine "getting to know you" conversations with folks. Even if these problems aren't exactly KM-centric, your ability to satisfy their need is what will win them over and ingratiate you. This is what builds a power base.

And sure, you want to avoid being some kind of corporate 'cleaner' that everyone runs to for all of their miscellaneous needs, but that's a problem for the next 90 days (or the 90 after that), in the first 90 days your goal is simply to be recognized as a problem-solver who adds value to the organization.

Hope this helps someone to avoid some of the mistakes I made starting out.

Cheers!

Commentary: Is KM Dead?

"Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated." - Mark Twain

Though I'm not usually one for "blurb" blogging, I was planning on doing just that with this video gem (click the title of this post to access) of my current KM-crush, Patrick Lambe, discussing whether or not KM is dead (or dying) with KM gurus Larry Prusak and Dave Snowden.

While the video features a provocative discussion for the entire KM community, I was initially intrigued/humored by the comments on the management aspect of KM and Dave Snowden's mention of his dressing down by Peter Drucker with regards to Frederick Taylor because I just blogged about putting the 'M' back into KM and happened to vilify Taylor and Taylorism all in the same post. Coincidentally, Peter Drucker considers Taylor to be the Father of KM. Based solely on the principles of scientific management, as I understand them, I'm not sure how comfortable I am with that idea. I am willing to concede that these principles (with some tweaking, in certain types of organizations) miiiight make for good management (so noble of me, I know), but good knowledge management...ehhh. Anyway, I've downloaded copies of The Principles of Scientific Management and also Shop Management to read in their entirety to see if I can be persuaded otherwise.

Just as a side note, my overall issue with scientific management is that I feel that it reduces people to cogs in a machine rather than lifting them up to their potential. Take McDonald's, for example: several years ago they started using cash registers with pictures of food items instead of the names of menu items or numbers(?; I'm still hoping they have numbers). That's classic Taylorism - you don't have to read or be able to do rudimentary math anymore, just look for the picture! Think about that and tell me how this style of management is supposed to make us more competitive and cutting-edge as a nation in the global knowledge economy.

Blame it on my adult education background, but I think that scientific management reinforces and perpetuates a poor work ethic, a negative (cultural) mentality about work, in general, and stifles creativity. Some may say that's not the goal or purpose of management, I say that neither is objectification. Understanding people and managing accordingly is smart business. (Yes, that's a simplification, but I'm not trying to get into a big discussion on this point right now).

Ironically, the structure of scientific management is exactly what a lot of organizations are seeking in a KM strategy largely because it's familiar and comfortable to them; it's easier to bend KM around what they know, than to explore new (untried, risky, possibly flawed) ways of thinking and doing business. Going back to Roger Martin's eye opening article on making design work, Tough Love - what I still believe is the new guide for understanding how to make make KM work - the reason "why most executives prefer the known to the unknown...it's a lot easier and safer to run a billion-dollar business than it is to invent one." Amen brother. Cogs don't innovate, people do.

I told ya, don't get me started on Taylorism.

Anyway, now that I'm worried Peter Drucker wouldn't come to my dinner party (if I could invite anyone who ever lived....everybody has a list like that, right?), I was, as I wrote earlier, initially intrigued and humored by the discussion, but then I started getting pissy.

First, there was Lambe's comment about the "lack of a coherent practice community". A couple of months ago I blogged about the need for KM certification, KM-specific continuing ed programs, and the establishment of an oversight board to develop generally accepted KM standards/practices. When I set out to get feedback on this idea from various practitioners, I received a dressing down of my own. I was utterly shocked by the vehemence of the responses (against the idea) and yet, I've been hard-pressed to find strong communities of practice that have been successful at organizing their own knowledge resources (that's called irony...you know, because some of us get paid to create CoP's for a living). Rather, I tend to find pockets of like-minded folks who work in the same industry (or for the same employer) who more or less bitch-and-moan/sympathize/commiserate with one another over their trials and tribulations (not unlike the ladies of Sex & The City, though probably less fashionably).

The "lack of a coherent practice community" comment led to a comment about the average lifespan of a knowledge manager being 1-2 years. If you've read my blog posts about my frustration with staying inspired within the field then you should know that I'm not surprised by this at all. If someone like me, who's entire academic career and subsquent professional career has revolved around knowledge management; and I mean, entering directly into the field of knowledge management, not tangentially, has experienced burn-out within just a few years of graduation, it's not hard to imagine what other practitioners are feeling.

Which of course, begs the questions: (1) If there were a such a community, might there be less turnover within the field, a weaker perception of the field-as-fad, and more interest in KM as an acceptable business practice? And, (2) Would anyone be asking if KM is dead? If the answer to the first question is somewhere in the neighborhood of 'maybe' ('maybe not' for the second) then why the hell am I getting flack for suggesting some structure to the field?!?!?!

The more I watched, the more I upset I became, not necessarily because of anything specific that was said, but because, as a practitioner, I'm in the field everyday; I deal with organizations that need the understanding that I bring to the table, but are hard-pressed to reframe their perceptions of how businesses should operate, even as the markets they operate in swifly change around them. And, when there is still so much potential for KM to realize, so much opportunity for growth within the field, two of the fields most recognizable names (and my KM-crush) are speaking of its death. And, not even because KM has outlived or outgrown it's usefulness, but because misconceptions and misapplications of KM have failed to bear fruit.

How indeed is the community supposed to survive, when its leaders are sounding its funeral knell?

Clearly, I don't believe that KM is dead? Battered, beaten, tortured, viciously maligned and left on the side of the road to die maybe, but not dead.

And there are no walking dead, either.

What we have are organizations who have identified and acknowledged needs who continue to seek out solutions to their problems (and people to develop them), even after other such persons have been driven off (fairly or not) - Frankenstein-style - with pitchforks and torches. Even when KM (either as they've defined it or as it has been sold to them) is pronounced a sham, the need that originated their interest in KM still remains.

In my opinion, the issue that most organizations have with authentic KM (as a fundamental business process, not an off-the-shelf, replicable solution), is their general unwillingness to construct and invest in KM as a business practice that forces them outside of their comfort zones. The field of KM has become fragmented, as discussed in the video, as a direct result of organizations attemping to hijack (and circumvent) KM and break it down into smaller, structured, more palatable, and more controllable (scientifically managed) components that allow them to continue doing what they do (in a slightly different way) without having to completely invest in KM, which they don't understand. As a result, any change is minimal or purely cosmetic. In general, I don't see fragmentation alone as a bad thing - these can all be aspects of KM and a KM solution, adopted as the organization becomes comfortable with proposed changes. It's only when folks try establish these fragments, these singular aspects of KM as wholly knowledge management that I see a problem.

Furthermore, I think that this is a problem that practitioners allow to fester when we refuse to step up and organize ourselves in order to manage perceptions of what knowledge management is (and isn't) and what Knowledge Managers do. Now, I'm not saying that we need to have strictly defined roles and labels for KM professionals and KM activity, we know that the work we do involves wearing many hats, but we need to be able to explain, at a minimum, what knowledge management is, what a Knowledge Manager is, and what separates vastly different knowledge management professionals from one another (e.g., knowledge architect vs knowledge librarian vs knowledge analyst).

There is a tremendous lack of information about, oversight and direction for the field of KM. And, many of the KM strategies that are being developed and implemented are done so in the absence of this information and direction. In the absence of firm definitions and a defining concept of KM, organizations operate under misconceptions that are not well-founded/grounded and ultimately fall apart.

As to KM, in general, while the term knowledge management may be recent (relatively speaking), the central idea of knowledge management (managing the sum of your resources for better, more efficient use) has been around for a long time. In this regard, I am willing to acknowledge the influence and historical relevance of scientific management. However, 'managing' knowledge isn't like herding goats or building a better lemming, despite the fact that some businesses continue to operate as though we were in the middle of the industrial economy (and others, the agricultural economy). And, it's attempts at syncretizing KM with the principles of scientific management that have left us discussing whether to burn or bury.

I say, for now at least, pass the torch to the next generation and let's see what we can do with KM before writing the field's obituary.

Putting the 'M' (Back?) in KM

OR, "Everything I Ever Really Needed To Know About Management I Learned Captaining a Tennis Team"

Wow, I can't believe it's almost been two months since my last post. In June, I was working on a Gossip Girl inspired KM post to mark the end of the series' first season, but between the untimely passing of a good friend and drama surrounding the project I'm currently working on, I haven't had much desire to blog. This past weekend however, the dark clouds of my project have passed over and I'm gradually becoming a little less melancholy about my friend.

It also helps that the Summer USTA and ALTA season's have come to an end. I'm always excited at the start of each tennis season but, to be frank, I'm equally excited when it's over. Captaining one team is like holding down a part-time job, captaining two teams is stressful as all-get-out! Being team Captain though (and interacting with all of those other captains) has emphasized for me how supremely easy it is to be a crappy manager (regardless of results) and, also, how little recognition good managers can receive from their 'troops', superiors, and peers. Sometimes, I think that good managers don't truly get noticed and appreciated until the shit hits the fan and their skills and experience come to the rescue.

That's actual skill and experience I'm talking about...not luck; know the difference.

At the same time, I've been on the receiving end of some really bad management with my current project (micro-management, bureaucracy, poor planning, tunnel vision - the works). So, my work and play activities have coalesced into this commentary on the importance of management in knowledge management.

Most Knowledge Managers, at some point, have been (or will be) asked how exactly one manages knowledge. For my part, I'm able to recognize when this question is a genuine attempt to understand what KM is all about and when the inquirer is asking solely to be an argumentative ass. Still, I think that it's worth pointing out the need for Knowledge Managers to perceive of and conduct themselves as managers in every sense.

With KM, it's easy to get caught up in strategy design, systems design, processes, taxonomies and a range of tasks - big and small - associated with capturing and organizing information and knowledge-based activity and resources. So much so that the term 'manager' in KM is used more often as a verb than a noun. But, regardless if you are the sole KM resource in your organization or you have an actual staff working with you, shouldn't it be both?

Putting the 'M' (back?) in KM, emphasizing the management aspect of knowledge management, is critical to promoting a sense of empowerment among KM professionals. As Dr. Gerard Blair writes in his article, What Makes A Great Manager:

"When you become a manager, you gain control over your own work; not all of it, but some of it. You can change things. You can do things differently. You actually have the authority to make a huge impact upon the way in which your staff work. You can shape your own work environment."

A manager has influence and authority. A capital 'KM' Knowledge Manager is a change agent; a lower case 'km' knowledge manager is a functionary. It may seem like semantics, but how we are perceived (by others and ourselves) can have a tremendous impact on how we perform, what we feel capable of achieving, and what we actually accomplish.

Despite our designation, Knowledge Managers are not exclusively managing knowledge or information (even though that's clearly a responsibility of the job). We are also in the business of managing relationships that influence how information is shared; how shared information becomes (and generates) knowledge; and how the combination of relationships, knowledge, and information can be leveraged for a variety of purposes (and if you're not, then you should be!)

How each of us achieves our KM goals will vary greatly - that goes without saying - but principles of good management are universal and an important factor in the success of KM...if not the strategy itself, then at least the person/people guiding the strategy.

In his critical reflection, "Confessions of a Reformed Manager: Seven Principles for Becoming a Good Manager", Leadership Trainer & Coach, Randy Siegel offers the following seven principles for becoming a good manager:

• Good managers know themselves.
• Good managers share themselves, as well as their knowledge.
• Good management is servant leadership.
• Good managers manage the whole person.
• Good managers thrive on feedback.
• Good managers constantly check in with their intentions.
• When good managers make mistakes, they correct them fast.

By inserting 'knowledge' before manager in each of these statements, we begin to see how relevant these principles are to the work we do as well as the way in which we do it.

For my part, I'm not sure if I would describe myself as a great manager (that's like describing yourself as looking "hot" or being a "great catch"....conceited much?!?!) and I'll refrain from climbing up on my usual soapbox and 'enligtening' the masses with Management According to Christian. There are, after all, thousands of books and articles on the subject just waiting to be read. However, in closing, I will share what I've learned about being a manager from my role as team Captain.

Everything I Ever Really Needed To Know About Management I Learned From Captaining A Tennis Team

Communication
You can post messages on the team management site (that everyone knows about because you badgered them to log-on and setup their profile), send out the most carefully constructed, colorful, catchy, concise and detailed emails known to mankind (twice), and a supporting text message, for good measure, and it's still a sure bet that the night before your match more than one person will be clueless as to whether or not they're playing, when, where, and what food contribution their meant to bring.

In your personal life, over-communication may be relationship suicide, but in tennis and business matters it's better to over do it than get caught ass-out. The trick is to understand the variety of ways you have access to your people and treat each critical communiqué as all out war.

Or you could pull a 'Miranda Priestly' and just have everyone be deathly afraid of you and hang on your every word.

Yeah, that works too.

Leadership
As Salt 'n Pepa so eloquently rhymed in their 1995 Grammy Award-winning song, 'None of Your Business', "Opinions are like assholes and everybody's got one".

So harsh, yet so true.

Ironically, while few want the responsibility of leadership (even less so once they realize what the work involves), almost everyone wants to tell you how to do your job. Often, it seems like you spend more time managing criticism than anything else.

While being a great manager involves eliciting and considering feedback, it's important to remember that, ultimately, the buck stops with you and your level of accountability is the highest of your team. So, set boundaries and heed your own counsel (unless you have a poor track record of making good decisions, then don't).

And, when able, always make leadership decisions that minimize your personal levels of stress and aggravation. Don't go putting yourself out unnecessarily; masochism is so '80s.

Vision
A good Vision is contagious.

I have a vision that one day my team will not only be recognized for the outstanding food and hospitality we offer our opponents, but will take the State championship as well. I'm still waiting for that day to arrive (hopefully before Hell's wildly anticpated freezing over), but for now I'm content with the reputation that my team has created for being fun-loving, amiable, and fantastic hosts! Teams in other divisions talk about us and even players who leave my team to join others or create their own take that vision with them and try to emulate it. In business, that kind of buy-in is priceless.

The key: keep it simple, make it achieveable, and, most importantly, believe in it yourself!

Planning
Hard to believe, but playing League tennis has done wonders for my planning skills. Not surprisingly since, quite literally, you have to begin planning for the next season as soon as the current one begins (at least with ALTA).

As a result, you come to understand that planning is an on-going process. Short-term, you're planning each week's matches, lineups, and practice sessions (which are driven by the previous week's performance); simultaneously, for the long-term, you're planning the next season - securing courts, recruiting new players, maybe trying out new coaches; and all of this planning activity is interconnected and under the umbrella of your overall vision for the team.

While your team members are focused on the very next match they are going to play, you have to be able to see both the details and the bigger picture. In the beginning, it's daunting, to be sure, but blessedly, it can all be learned. Which is a good thing too, because the workplace is significantly less forgiving environment to learn some lessons.

Motivation
Ah, now we come to the area that most challenges my leadership skills. All I can say is Thank God IRB approval isn't necessary to be Team Captain 'cause I'm sure I'd be sitting before a tribunal by now facing some sort of ethics charges. Okay, maybe it's not that bad and I'm certainly no B.F. Skinner or (IMO, the anti-Christ of knowledge management) 'Dick' Taylor (don't ever get me started on my utter dislike of scientific management/Taylorism, but trying to understand what motivates the variety of players on any team - work or play - and then implement motivational techniques/strategies is enough to drive anyone bonkers. I've tried various incentives, disincentives and positive and negative reinforcement tactics; next season I'm even pushing the team up to a higher level of play to encourage a stronger sense of competition.

I suppose, if I've learned anything about motivation it's that you have to start by recruiting team members who have a good attitude to begin with. And, you have to be willing to get rid of people with a bad attitude. Again, it sounds harsh, but in the long run you aren't doing yourself any favors by indulging the whims of divas and "Bad Andy's". Beyond that, focus on developing people's potential; the more success they lay claim to, the more they want and that can be priceless motivation.

For example, I have players on my team that started out with little or no tennis experience and no one wanted to play with them (as a doubles team). Less than a year later they are, undoubtedly, they were (and still are) the most popular players on the team (as well as some of the best). Contrast that with the players who came on board as self-styled 'rock stars' who are definitely good players, but their egos take up so much room on the court that few people want to play with them. Each season I've had to uninvite at least one of these folks from the team. It's hard to 'fire' folks that don't fit the team you're managing, but at all times you've got to do what's best for the team.

Strategy

"What's the use of running if you are not on the right
road?" - German proverb

For the purpose of full disclosure, I must admit, modestly, of course, that I'm fortunate enough to be something of a strategist, naturally. While my duties as Captain have benefitted from this skill, it's my on-court time that has helped to sharpen them.

During a match, too many players (even some of mine) enter into play with Plan A and when that falls apart so does their game. You see this happen with business strategies all the time. If you're a smart cookie, you learn the art of continuously developing strategies - from Plan A to Plan AAA - re-evaluating your options and taking a new approach to your game, as needed and on-the-fly, for the duration of your match.

Of course, sometimes you just get out-played, it happens. But, in either sport or business, having a quick mind and being able to keep your wits about you in stressful situations is what keeps you one step ahead in the game.

Accounting for KM: I ♥ Patrick Lambe

If you can't tell from my blog, I'm pretty irreverent.

While there are a few things I like to keep traditional (NY-style cheesecake sans toppings, Sunday Brunch, Gin Martini's, Presbyterian Church services with classical hymns - none of those contemporary services for me, bub!), I'm otherwise a white-after-Labor-Day wearing, sex-politics-religion talking kinda guy. Back when I was a student at Georgia State, absorbing anything and everything KM that I could get my hands on, it's my irreverence that I credit with helping me to separate the wheat from the chaff of KM lit as well as seek inspiration from other sources/fields - Psychology, Economics, Marketing, Education...Pokémon.

Yes, Pokémon.

I wrote a paper entitled "Pokémon As a Metaphor for Knowledge Management: Gotta Catch 'Em All!"...hardly worthy of KM World or InsideKnowledge, but I got an 'A'! (If you think that's interesting, I got my one and only tattoo just for an Organizational Devevlopment class project in which we had to present analyses and comparisons of three businesess in the same field. We chose tattoo parlors. And, again, got an 'A'. When I get my PhD I'm going to get something pierced, lol.)

Yes, I rock. I know. Totally OOC (out of control).

Anyway, having read a lot of crap on the subject of KM, I'm not one to fawn over the rockstars of KM (even though I have the list). Usually, I'm so critical of the literature that it's rare for me to put anyone on a pedestal, but I'm putting Patrick Lambe on one today.

I don't know Patrick, personally, and I was only recently introduced to his work and thoughts last week when I was researching KM certification and came across his 2006 article, "KM Competencies: Is Certification the Way to Go?".

On Tuesday, I was Googling 'sunk cost' wiki-style (you know, when you start on one page reading something and then 2 hours later you've clicked your way onto some completely tangential topic?) when I found myself at Green Chameleon reading Patrick's 2002 article,"Accounting for Knowledge Management"

Hands down, it's the most brilliant piece on KM that I've read in 2008 and, maybe, for the last couple of years. And, it's useful. Not in some academic, theoretical, abstract sense, but practically useful. It's not a 'how to' manual though (so don't go gettin' all excited), but for those of you grappling with the development of metrics and tools/processes to measure the value of your KM efforts, Patrick has written an intelligent, insightful (and interesting to read) article that provides both history and perspective on accounting for knowledge-intensive businesses and activity.

It made me think of my first knowledge audit and how it took me just a hair over six months, several (almost) pointless AEA (American Evaluation Association) conference modules and sheer gumption to design and then implement what I hoped wouldn't be a capital-F failure. The end result, my 'State of Knowledge' report to the company, has become a regular deliverable in every KM engagement with which I'm involved. Just as Patrick touches on in this article, it may not provide the hard numbers and precise statistical figures associated with modern accounting methods, but it does provide an account - annually - that represents to management, the leadership, investors and the organization, in general, the value derived from investments made in human capital and KM efforts.

So, after reading this KM chef d'oeuvre I cyber-stalked Patrick via Google, nosed around Green Chameleon for a bit, and read several more amazing articles:

• Why KM is Hard To Do: Infrastructure, KM and Implementing Change, June 2006
  
• Knowledge and Tragedy: or why we shouldn’t share knowledge, July 2003
  
• The Knowledge Wizards: Hope in a Time of Darkness/Playing the Knowledge Game, December 2002
  
• Fashion, Magic and Knowledge Management, January 2000
  
• The Autism of Knowledge Management, July 2002
  
• A-Z of Knowledge Management, September 1999

There are many more, so you'll have to check out the website to view them, but I love these articles mostly because even the ones written 7 or 8 years ago still ring (prophetically) true today.

Thanks Patrick! It would have been nice to have had your insights when I was in school, but I'll happily share them now that I'm in the field.

Article Response: KM Is Both The Process and The End Result

I hadn't planned on posting a blog today, especially since I had one of those weird, job-in-jeopardy-dreams last night (because I didn't bring 15 sub sandwiches to an office event...even though, in my dream, I didn't know I was supposed to bring anything). Some people dream of being naked, I dream of not bringing subs to an office party...tomato, tomata. Anyway, I figured I'd just focus on work today, but as I was doing my daily news/blog reviews, I came across the article, Tapping Into Knowledge Management at CIO Insight by John Parkinson.

Mr. Parkinson's main point is that KM "isn't something you do. Rather, it's the result you get when you do a lot of other things right."

As both the title of this post, and my response below indicates, I'm not in total agreeement with this statement. Please access the link above to read the article (it's brief) and read my comments below.

Cheers!!

"What fascinates me most about a lot of the KM literature that I read - it sets KM way up in Mount Olympus and then gives the most dodgy, convoluted, wordy directions to getting there. Still, as a KM practitioner, I'm not completely on board with the idea that knowledge management isn't something you do", preferring to believe that it is both the process and the end result.

"As a student of Obvious Adams, I am in total agreement with your skepticism of a big, expensive, capital-letter KM engagement. Particularly, since it sounds to me like you really just need to introduce a forward-looking process that provides a forum for capturing the knowledge/information you're after and then either hiring or tasking a dedicated resource - someone familiar with your industry, work environment, products, and projects - to analyze and report on the information being shared.

"I say forward-looking, because it's important not to get caught up in trying to capture past behaviors/practices - if that knowledge is still relevant, it will come, if it isn't, then it's useless anyway.

"And, yes, there's always a learning curve and there are always folks who are either late to the party (late adopters) or who never arrive (non-users), but you can increase adoption through a combination of marketing (an internal 'viral campaign' and word-of-mouth via early adopters/advocates) and by making use of tools/resources that are already being used. In most production environments, people are already sharing information using some form of e-tool, be it email, IM, wikis, etc. or some combination and, it's likely, either the information that you're looking for, or the path to those with that knowledge, is there.


"As, to the busy-ness of people with the valued knowledge, unless your KM is Charles Xavier you're never going to get it all anyway!

"However, by having specific needs and focused questions (using the aforementioned process) and leaving the analysis of that information to someone well-suited to the task, you make the process minimally invasive, minimally irksome, and, most importantly, relevant.

"My personal experience is that it's not sharing that people have a problem with, it's having to info-dump, indiscriminately, AND, do it in tidy little chunks, easily digestible by the masses; make the process convenient and intelligent to the full range of your consumers and you just might get somewhere. After all, everyone has a use for useful knowledge.

"Good luck!!"

What's your take?

Knowledge Management: The Organizational War Chest

OR, "How To Survive Being 'Voted Off The Island' During A Recession"

What's this?!?! Two posts in a month!?!?!? Shocking, I know :-D

So, after a weekend of exceeding my insanely frugal budget, I finally got around to completing last Friday's checkbook reconciliation on Monday. Imagine my surprise when I discovered I'd received an additional tax refund. Of course, it took me a while to realize it wasn't a mistake and that I'd actually been given a Stimulus Refund (whew, 'cause it would have sucked to have used that money towards my airline ticket to London for Fiona's wedding and then have to give it back). I guess this is the downside of not watching the evening news and mostly reading the entertainment section of the newspaper. But, hey, with my crazy work and tennis schedules, if I've got to choose between Gossip Girl and CNN clearly, I'm "movin' on up to the upper East side".

Anyway, as I wiki'd the Stimulus Refund while on hold with Sprint to order a new Palm Centro to replace the one I've only had for five months, yet still managed to brutalize (because, apparently, I'm hell on cell phones) I started thinking about the general crappiness of the economy which is resulting in an increasingly crappier job market and wondered about the role of KM during this downturn.

Considering how much Economics confuses me (especially those friggin' graphs), it's hard for even me to believe that I have a BS in Urban Policy Studies and that I was just two or three courses shy of getting a minor in Economics, but I do seem to remember that one of the major effects of a recession is unemployment. Not that I'm saying we're in one, just that the signs we're headed in that direction have been hanging in the sky for a while now. Of course, if you're getting an economic outlook from me, then you clearly have deeper issues.

It's ironic that in the information age, people are both an organization's greatest asset and greatest liability. At any rate, the massive loss of talent, experience, knowledge, and information that companies suffer during a recession is just one of the many reasons organizations look to KM as a strategic solution.

Unfortunately.

I say 'unfortunately' because downsizing and layoffs have the effect of transforming KM from a suppportive, cultural change strategy to a gestapo tactic operating in a culture of fear.

Even under optimal conditions, it's difficult to shift employee practice from knowledge hoarding to knowledge sharing but, during an economic downturn, when few are certain of their place in an organization (or the ability to find a new position should the need arise), it's down right impossible. At least not in a positive, reaffirming way. I mean, you might see an increase in accessing/downloading information from your knowledge base as employees "stock-up" in anticipation of a pink slip, but the uploads might be a little skimpy. After all, a good majority of folks derive a significant amount of their identity and self-esteem from their careers and when they feel threatened about the security of their job it's kinda hard to get them to participate in any process that diminishes their perceived value.

And, this isn't just about non-KM folks either. Having experienced the joy of being laid-off during rough economic times (and knowing other KM professionals in the same boat) you can bet your sweet patootie that unless KM is a money-making venture and/or you have friends in high places (i.e., social capital), your department and KM efforts may - in homage to Survivor - have it's torch extinguished.

This is one of the reasons that I don't like the "one big family" metaphor that too many orgs like to bandy about. Because, inevitably, when the hard times come, the ties that bind are hardly familial.

So, the point of all of this rambling is that a well-conceived, well-implemented strategic KM solution is a war chest that organizations can lean on, particularly in times of economic uncertainty. KM professionals need to be prepared to help their organizations navigate such waters while also demonstrating/confirming the value of KM AND building social capital, 'cause you can never have enough clout, baby!

How, you ask?

1. Be aggressive and proactive in addressing the challenges facing the organization and in offering strategic solutions
   To paraphrase President Kennedy, "Ask not what KM might could do for your organization, get off your butt and show them" (yes, the bad grammar is intentional). It's possible that your organizational leadership will seek out your input on an impending economic downturn, but there's no guarantee. A strong sense of self-preservation is necessary, so don't play wait-and-see. Take initiative! And, if for some reason, they are hard-headed and don't want to listen, that should be your first and last clue to get out of Dodge anyway!
   
2. Be a part of the process of assessing the organization's vulnerability to a recession and contingency planning
   If it turns out that such an assessment has already taken place, identify ways in which KM can be utilized and sketch out action plans for presentation to the leadership.
   
3. Establish or strengthen critical partnerships
   Particularly with Sales, Product Development and Finance...especially Finance...and, also with HR. By understanding and successfully helping these departments to meet their KM needs during a time of crisis, you're not only making them KM co-champions, you're generating social capital among those who hold the ear of the-powers-that-be and, hopefully, elevating yourself into that role as well.
   
4. Look for ways to leverage organizational knowledge
   I had a manager once who chided me for suggesting that we should build and sell our custom KMS to our clients as a new product offering. I understood his reasons for being against the idea, namely that the primary function of KM in that company was as a support service, not a revenue generator, but I disagreed. I still disagree.
   
   For me, what differentiates a Knowledge Manager from a corporate librarian (information 'gatekeeper') is the ability to take all of the knowledge and information resources that are being captured and shared, analyze it and develop strategies for leveraging it to improve an organization's market share and position. This is the holy grail of KM. Color me crazy, but in a bottom-line business what better way to demonstrate value than to have a direct impact on the bottom-line? Even though I know for many it isn't, in my opinion, this practice should be a regular part of a KMer's job. If it hasn't been, a recession would be a good time to demonstrate KM's ultimate value. (If you're doing your job correctly) You've got access to vast organizational information resources - use it!!
   
   As Carl George, Chairman of AICPA's National CPA Financial Literacy Commission posits, "Somebody's always making money, even in a recession, so if you can find out where those pockets are and if you have services you can provide to them, maybe you want to expand those services."
   
5. Stay the KM course
   This is more for the leadership than the KM professionals. If you want people to continue their participation in KM intiatives, even with a cloud of doom floating above their heads, then continue to support and promote your KM initiative. Clearly, putting your KM strategy and/or professionals on the chopping block suggests that either you weren't really serious about KM in the first place or that the KM strategy you were working with sucked...I mean, it wasn't working for you.

Lastly, I came across this little gem of wisdom from Mark Riffey's "Business is Personal" blog:

"If an economic recession does occur, choose NOT to participate. Everyone else will be cutting back, weakening their companies. They will let go of people who might be hungry enough to be your next superstar. The weakest of them may fail, or come close to it.

Almost anyone can run a company successfully during good times. During less prosperous times, the real management shows itself by preparing for the next boom and strengthening themselves."

Outwit. Outlast. Outplay. Survive.

KM Standards & Certification As A Professional Compass

OR, "Benny Medina, Will You Represent Me?"

Wow, it's been a dog's age since I've posted anything on here! I have to say, I'm always impressed by people who are able to blog regularly. Not just the act itself, but the variety of topics as well.

Anywho, I've been doing a lot of research lately on KM certification and (KM-specific) continuing ed programs as well as the establishment of an oversight board to develop generally accepted KM standards/practices (similar to the FAF/FASB/GASB) and I'd be interested in hearing folks' opinions on the subject.

Many of the blogs and articles I've read on certification in the last two weeks have been a few years old with the authors largely coming out against certifcation. In his article, "KM Competencies: Is Certification the Way to Go?" (2006) Patrick Lambe eschews certification in favor of professional societies as a means of KM practitioners acquiring the requisite KSAs (knowledge, skills, abilities), and desired support(mentoring/coaching). In a 2006 blog posting, Dave Snowden provides a nice overview of previous efforts to "standardize" the field of KM and ends by asking the following questions:

• Have standards just become a commercial venture?
  
• If so (he believes the answer to be yes) then how can they be objective?
  
• Can you create standards for a developing field before it stabilises?
  
• How can you take a standards model devised for goods (fire safety equipment) and apply it to services (knowledge management?
  
• And, finally, what is truth?

There's more stuff out there to Google on the subject, but I'm exploring this topic from the average practitioner's viewpoint and I honestly haven't come across any responses that discuss the matter from our perspective.

First off, let me say that I do not possess any certifications other than my university degrees and I'm not convinced that (CKM) certification, as it exists now, is either necessary or critical. It certainly ain't cheap!

However, we live in an age when businesses look to (best) practices that are quantifiable, predictable and replicable with verifiable outcomes and they love, love, love employing folks with various certifications - though not always paying for it - because, in their minds, it means you know something, even if you don't. Although, as I previously posted, KM utilizes a valid process (one that responds to an individual organization's needs) rather than a reliable process, that doesn't mean you can't (or shouldn't) have some form of structure or standards.

In his article, Patrick provides this brief list of reasons that folks would want certification:

• Novices would like a quick and reliable grounding in general awareness and core concepts
  
• Practitioners would like to have their own practice validated against professional standards and commonly agreed approaches
  
• Practitioners see career opportunities from acquiring professional recognition embodied in a certification process
  
• Consultants would like a qualification that gives them a competitive selling edge

I would definitely have to agree with these reasons and I don't see why this has to be a bad thing or makes those of us in this group misguided in seeking out certification and standards.

What I love about KM is the opportunity it presents (and sort of demands, in a way) for out of the box thinking, developing strategic solutions in much the same way that a marketing executive would develop a new campaign or a designer, a new or enhanced product.

What I hate is that I don't have a foundation upon which the strength of my peers and leaders in my field can back me up when I'm doing KM work and the skeptics I work with/for (who may or may not be signing my paycheck) are out to prove I'm a grifter selling snake oil.

After all, marketing campaign - either they like it or they don't; ultimately, the proof is in the pudding and your effectiveness will be determined by how well the target audience responds to your message - which doesn't require years of cultural change, a sample pool will do just fine. And designers - either the product does what you say it will or it doesn't, a simple trial run is all you need.

But KM? The long-term benefits of KM take time. We know this. And, depending upon the situation your organization is in, the quick wins may not come so quickly.

Now, do I believe that having certification and standards is a magic pill that will turn you into the Wizard of Oz, pre-curtain check? Hardly. The success of any educational program, no matter how illustrious the institution or instructor, still depends heavily on how well the student learns and applies the information (which, itself, is influenced by a combination of context and opportunity - what kind of work they're doing and what opportunities they have to utilize what they've learned). And of course, we all know that there are people with Ivy League degrees who are clearly not as bright as their pedigrees should indicate. But, that doesn't mean there isn't any value in certification or standards or that programs aimed at providing certification and continuing education can't be developed using an approach that reflects the actual needs of KM professionals.

As to the utility of professional societies, I'm in the process now of trying to set up a local Chapter of KMPro because I recognize the importance and value of networking with other professionals, but, even then, most of these societies are the same ones selling certification - expensively, I should add - with prices ranging from $575 to $3200. Some organizations I've looked at have membership fees in excess of $1,000 dollars. And don't get me started on the costs associated with participating in the various KM conferences, particularly if you don't live in an area where they are held and you don't have the benefit of a company budget to finance your attendance. Huge barriers to entry, I tell you. And sure, you can interact online with professionals from around the world, but how exactly do I express that interaction in my credentials or on my resume? Yes, you could also write articles and blogs, assuming one has the time, what with being busy trying to do (and keep) the job that pays your bills, puts a roof over your head, and funds all of the other things you do in your daily life.

I could go on and on here, but my point is that every option has its good points and its flaws. Rather than engage in an endless debate about what is best in one's own opinion, why not build and implement solutions, organically, that address the most common needs of KM professionals as we understand them; going outside the box, as necessary, and using the resources available. I mean, isn't that what knowledge managers do?

This is definitely not the end of this discussion for me, but I can't close this post out without attempting to answer Dave's questions:

• Have standards just become a commercial venture?
  For some organizations/groups, absolutely! And, in fairness to those orgs/groups, since we do live in a capitalistic society, if those best equipped (with passion, intellect, ingenuity, commitment, vision, and a sense of social responsibility) to drive a sincere campaign for standards don't or won't step up to the plate, then why shouldn't someone motivated by the almighty dollar make a buck? Over the years, I've learned that people in this field, both the novices and the experienced professionals, are looking for some structure and stability they can lean on and use to drive both their KM efforts to success as well as improve their career opportunities. Having standards is meant to provide that structure and stability. Should these standards come at a cost? No, they shouldn't, but the lack of standards definitely costs us (the field) in terms of professional credibility.
  
• If so, then how can they be objective?
  Clearly, I don't think that standards should be a commercial venture, but assuming that it currently is, I would stress two adages: "You get what you pay for" and "We set the standards for our own performance". If you've paid top dollar for a CKM certificate and you suck as a KM professional, it doesn't really say too much about your abilities or the organization who certified you, does it? Ultimately, in any situation, it's the responsibility of every organization's membership to police the organization to which they belong in order to maintain its integrity and objectivity, because if they don't then they suffer the consequence of their inaction and apathy. (Hello, Bush administration anyone?!?!)
  
• Can you create standards for a developing field before it stabilises?
  I think that this field has been around long enough and received enough press and consideration now that, until we have some standards in place, it won't ever properly stabilize and grow roots. Particularly, since so many organizations these days are taking it upon themselves to define the field in terms of their specific needs and then promoting their strategy as KM whether it is or isn't. The result: a multitude of definitions of KM that makes the field seem panoptic and unfocused. Which is not to say that whatever standards and guiding principles are adopted should narrow or restrict the concept or application of KM, rather, they should guide the growth of the field...like dental braces.
  
• How can you take a standards model devised for goods (fire safety equipment) and apply it to services (knowledge management)?
  You can't and you shouldn't (at least not at this stage of the game). Whatever moronocito decided to attempt this approach was clearly a friend of Tina. Seriously though, a good set of standards and guiding principles should begin much the same way as the 10 Commandments or Seven Virtues - you don't have to be a Christian or religious at all to appreciate their simmplicity and wisdom. Likewise, KM standards should provide us with a professional compass, not step-by-step, etched in stone instructions. And, a governing body, to oversee those standards, to shape and authorize certification and continuing education within KM is as much a marketing tool as it is a professional and educational resource; it's like having Benny Medina as your talent agent...okay, nothing could be better than having Benny Medina as your talent agent. I mean, if he could take J Lo from video 'ho' to superstar and bring Mariah Carey's career back from the brink of a mental meltdown and expulsion from Sony...the man's a genius.

Okay, that outburst was pretty much my cue to be done.

So, what standards or guiding principles, if any, do you think should be universally adopted for the KM field?

Oops, I forgot the last question:

• And finally, what is truth?
  Duh, Benny Medina. Ask a stupid question...

Critical Issues of KM in 2007-08

I've been working on a paper exploring five critical issues of KM from a practitioners perspective and since I haven't had time to blog I figured I might as well pop these out here and see what kinda feedback/responses I get. The paper (and research) is in process so these are just the issues I've decided to focus on - thus far - with comments from my notes (so please don't anyone try to break me down).

My overall goal with this paper is to examine ways in which to shift the field away from being too heavily driven and influenced by the demands of a market that neither fully grasps the concept of knowledge management, nor is completely cognizant of its own KM needs in order to further establish and legitimize KM.

1. A governing body to market and endorse a universal definition of KM and guiding principles for the field.
Because all organizations and their knowledge management challenges are not the same, “rules” for developing and implementing KM strategies are superfluous. However, “guiding principles” establish a set of standards for the field; illustrate the values of KM to which practitioners should aspire; and, provide organizations with an introduction to the scope and scale of KM.

2. Eschew KM as “business as usual” in favor of “business by design”
Efforts to sell KM as a quantifiable, measurable and replicable practice, producing proven, predictable results are misspent and wasted often resulting in a failure to launch any (worthwhile) strategy at all. Rather, the focus should first be placed on “producing a spectacular solution” that addresses the organizations need and then determining ways of measuring impact and fiscal value.

3. Minimize the continued emphasis on IT
Though IT may offer to provide the quantifiable, measurable and replicable solutions that speak to business “traditionalists”, in the knowledge economy innovation, not technology, is the means by which market advantage and increased profits are achieved. While KM strategies can be made more efficient and effective with an investment in the right technological tools, they are made successful with an investment in the right people development tools.

4. Expand the concept of knowledge workers
Organizations that aspire to become true thought leaders need to redefine internal business roles and relationships to see all employees as knowledge workers and organizational talent, removing the talent “class” ceiling. All employees have knowledge that is valuable to the organization. Certainly, higher value is associated to employees who require less development and management, but the question to be asked by organizations needs to be, ‘How how are we developing all of our talent resources?’ Particularly, since employees with a greater awareness of their higher value and its marketability are typically the first to leave in search of greener pastures. Conversely, talent requiring more development and management are more likely to aspire to greater things when the ceiling is removed.

5. Branding KM
There are many reasons KM initiatives fail to have the desired impact or simply fail altogether – even those bolstered by considerable executive, financial, and technological support. One of the most common reasons is that most, if not all, KM strategies are developed purely from the perspective of the organization’s self-interest and rarely, if ever, take into consideration the employee’s perspective, despite the fact that the initiative’s success hinges upon their collective buy-in and participation. Such strategies fail because they attempt only to answer the question, “what’s in it for me” and not, “what’s in it for them”.

Branding knowledge management is an attempt to redress this disparity through the strategic application of marketing techniques and learning tools that enable organizations to promote the relevance of KM to an individual’s role while firmly establishing the value and criticality of KM to the organization.

Building A Better Knowledge Manager: Love Is A Battlefield

"We are young, heartache to heartache we stand, no promises, no demands
Love is a battlefield
We are strong, no one can tell us were wrong, searchin' our hearts for so long, both of us knowing
Love is a battlefield"

I've spent the months since my last post trying to solve the riddle of how to regain my passion for KM and deciding whether or not I even want to continue in the field and all I can say is that it sucks to give up something you enjoy especially when you're good at it (and invested four-and-a-half years of college and five years of sweat). Sometimes the only thing you can do about a situation is to learn from it so then, I guess the only real option I'm left with is to pick my bruised ego and wounded pride up off the floor and resume my KM journey.

Since it turns out that Forrest was right and life is eerily like a box of chocolates, I'm not quite sure if I'll make it to the KM Valhalla I envisioned when I was a college sophomore starting down this path, but WTF, too much certainty is bad for the soul, right?

At any rate, as I'm now committed to developing myself into a better Knowledge Manager, I've determined that the first step is ditching the spirit of fear and frustration I've acquired and reclaiming the spirit of adventure that attracted me to KM in the first place. An excellent source of inspiration in this endeavor is an amazing article on making design work written by the Univerity of Toronto's B- School Dean, Roger Martin, for my business bible, Fast Company. In my opinion, this article should be de rigueur reading for every KM professional.

In providing his keys to making design work, Martin provides a description of design that illuminates the field of knowledge management.

"Corporate types, by and large, seek to fuel growth by building from bulletproof, reproducible systems; designers generally attempt to do so by imagining something new, different, better. That difference can be seen as a trust in reliability on the one hand and in validity on the other.

"A reliable process--which tends to attract folks in finance, engineering, and operations--produces a predictable result time and again. This is business as algorithm: quantifiable, measurable, and provable. It hews to that old management adage, "What doesn't get measured doesn't get done.

"A valid process, on the other hand, flows from designers' deep understanding of both user and context, and leads them to ideas they believe in but can't prove. They work in a world of variables: the unpredictable, the visual, the experimental. Great designers worry less about replicating a successful process than about producing a spectacular solution…Valid thinking demands an inspired leap of faith. Before John Mackey launched one of the country's first supermarket-style natural-food stores, for example, nobody could prove that Whole Foods Market would succeed at all, let alone become the most profitable food retailer (in terms of profit per square foot) in the United States. But Mackey did it anyway.

"As the computer scientist Alan Kay put it so memorably, 'The best way to predict the future is to invent it.'"

KM is a field in which a lot of new ground is being explored in understanding, identifying, managing, capturing, and leveraging information, knowledge, and the organizational relationships that generate and share information and knowledge. Like design, the best strategic KM solutions utilize a valid process – one that is developed in response to an individual organization's needs. And, like design, this approach comes under steady fire from traditional business leaders who seek a reliable process that is predictable, quantifiable and replicable.

In the article, Martin goes on to discuss how utilizing both approaches leads to business gold, and obviously, that's the goal, but for most organizations that synthesis must wait until a sustainable KM effort is in place.

The key for KM strategists? Education, education, education. It doesn't help many of us that there is so much information and misinformation about knowledge management floating around cyberspace, readily available to folks in need of a solution. Even when you attempt to set realistic expectations about developing and implementing KM solutions, it's hard to get past misleading service providers who claim their OTS (off-the-shelf) application is a one-stop solution in a box for all/most KM needs or that hard-headed executive who reads one article on the potential benefits of KM, but who fails to consider the depth and detail of the work involved in bringing those benefits to fruition. And for the KM's themselves (speaking from recent experience), the pressure to conform to a way of doing business that, while being familiar to the "traditional" exec, limits the success and challenges the integrity of a successful KM strategy, is stifling.

Love is a battlefield and so is KM. Let's do what we can take to stay the course.

Keeping The Faith: Bouncing Back From Losing Your Passion For KM

It’s been months since my last blog and even trying to write this involved taking days off from work and tossing and turning in bed several nights.

After years of trying to blaze a KM trail I’ve lost my passion. Truth be told, my passion was less “lost” and more pounded out of me. Surfing the rough and tumble corporate waters, I suppose it was only a matter of time before one too many waves took its toll on me and now I’m struggling to find my “mojo” and get back out into the water; that is, if I want to get back out there at all.

The experience has me wondering how you keep going in this field when you’ve lost your passion. Over the years, I’ve read several articles about the value of maintaining your sanity as a KM professional and keeping your head up in a business world that doesn’t always understand or appreciate you. Now, going through my own professional crisis, I can’t help but wonder how many of those authors remained in the field after their literary purge.

For me, the biggest challenge has been staying inspired. I mean, I still love KM; it’s certainly not that I don’t care about KM anymore, but I don’t feel the same level of inspiration that motivated me to study the field and transformed me into a proselyte. In the absence of this inspiration, I am confronted with exactly how important passionate adherents are to the future of this field; more so than is currently discussed in the existing literature.

Yes, you need awareness of KM, understanding of organizational dynamics, executive support, access to tools and resources, blah, blah, blah, but none of that means much if you don’t have someone passionately championing KM initiatives in an organization. And more than a budget or carte blanche, that person needs to be supported and encouraged in the work that they do. What's more, KM professionals also need to be able to maintain their own level of passion and inspiration.

Anyway, in the hopes that this literary purge doesn’t herald the end of my own KM ambitions, I reflected on some possible tips for getting back into the swing of things and re-discover that old KM magic.


#1: Remember that KM is change. KM involves uncomfortable changes in the way people communicate and relate to others in an environment where their financial security (and a huge part of their identity and self-esteem) is at stake – and you’re the point person! Regardless of how necessary or beneficial the changes you propose, they will most likely be met with resistance and, perhaps, counter measures. Understanding this won’t make you feel any better when you’re under attack, but hopefully it will give you some insight when launching your own counter attack.

#2: Maintain strong, reliable social and professional networks. Having folks around you that not only understand you as a person, but what KM is and what you do professionally is truly a beautiful thing. People who know you as a person will help to keep you grounded and (hopefully) prevent you from going postal in the workplace, while people who understand what is that you do (or strive to) and who can relate to the challenges, victories, and defeats you encounter as a KM professional help to take the edge off and are able to help you come up with potential solutions to professional dilemmas.

#3: Maintain your spirit of adventure. True KM folks are not only strategists and creative problem solvers, we are entrepreneurs and risk takers. We’re the folks who don’t stop at whining about a problem, we set out to resolve the problem. We’re not afraid of a challenge or even the little failures along the road to success. Still, we’re not undefeatable or indefatigable – consistent blows to our spirit can diminish our confidence as it would anyone elses. The key is to find some way (a totem, a mantra, prayer…ecstasy – just kidding…a little) to stick to the road less traveled for the duration of our KM adventure, even when the urge is strong to temporarily stray from the path to clock a naysayer.

#4: Do you. As a college Junior, what drew me to a career in KM was the opportunity to pursue my combined interests in strategy, organizational development, marketing, psychology, and party planning – hey, I’m a social butterfly. The icing on the cake was working in a developing field with the potential to be someone who shapes a new way of doing business. Years later, I find myself having had to narrow or completely sacrifice my scope and vision of KM to satisfy organizational leaders who are either afraid of change, lacking in vision, or who, ironically, also suffer from having had their passion for what they do blotted out. In business, it’s not uncommon to rationalize that certain “sacrifices” must be made in order to make the deal, satisfy the client, walk away with the “win”, etc, etc. My only thought here is a biblical one: “What does it profit a man to gain the world yet lose his soul?” So, I say, “do you.” Follow your bliss. Don’t be stupid, blind, or naïve about it, but don’t be so quick to change your path to accommodate those who lack the vision, courage, or conviction to chart new waters. Hell, that’s supposed to be the American Way.

Well, this blog was definitely cathartic. I’m curious as to what will come next. If I can find a way to get back on the path, re-discover my “mojo”, re-ignite the flames of my passion and forge ahead on “Route KM”.

Let’s hope so.

Laborious Thoughts: Sleep, pee, eat, watch 24, repeat

Over the Labor Day holiday I was anything but laborious, enjoying a lazy weekend of sleeping, snacking, napping, and playing solitaire on my laptop while binging on Seasons 1, 2, and 3 of 24. I didn't get into the show when it first aired, but having the opportunity to watch it straight through from the beginning, I have to say I'm hooked. I'm only on Season 3, disc 5 so I don't know what happens from this point on, but I have to say that Sherri Palmer has become my favorite love-to-hate character.

Anyway, I've finally broken free of my "sleep-pee-eat-watch 24" cycle to write this blog on reruitment and retention (R&R), hallelujah!

For the last few weeks, I've been fascinated with the impact of KM on R&R and exploring the influence of the KM function in how organizations acquire and develop knowledge - not just in knowledge capture and delivery.

It occurs to me that for most organizations, KM is utilized primarily as a loss prevention mechanism, with the intention of preventing as little information from escaping the organization as possible. I've read articles, online discussions and threads that focus on the need to capture critical knowledge and information in an employee's exit interview (and in the days/weeks/months leading up to the exit) and the role of KM in those efforts (unfortunately, I didn't think to grab links to those sites), but I've yet to read any literature that describes the potential benefits of KM as a recruitment tool.

In today's increasingly tech-savvy economy too many companies have become tech-lazy. HR recruitment functions have been relegated to automated systems that identify candidates through stringent keyword filters based on narrowly defined job descriptions that, often, HR representatives themselves don't understand. Recruitment and selection for most companies is a joke - I say this as someone who, just four or five years ago participated in campus and city job fairs as an exiting college student only to hear from each and every recruiter "check our website for jobs and submit your resume online". Sometimes they took a hard copy of your resume, gave you a card, and discussed your career goals, but always they sent you online, even though I'm pretty sure every student at those fairs had already been online and was standing in line to get a job - not the run around. Unfortunately, talking to recent graduates and experienced job seekers as a recruiter I hear the same stories today.

How do organizations improve their recruitment strategies? Trust me, it ain't with Monster! You need a clear grasp of the organization's long-term strategic direction and a firm understanding of the knowledge, skills, and abilities that will get you there, that's KM baby! It's not just about what you know, but what you need to know to get where you're trying to go.

As to retention, once you've captured the knowledge and information you're after, and let's say, for arguments sake, that you even got a lock on some of that difficult to acquire tacit knowledge - what then is the incentive to retain the individual(s) who provided the knowledge? I mean, I know what the theoretical textbook response might be ("knowledge development is a continual process, and 'high producers' have value beyond what they may share or contribute at any one point in time"), but let's be honest - do we really believe that the leadership in most companies today has achieved that level of awareness? Do we accept that organizational leaders are progressive and/or focused enough to see any individual employees value beyond either the job description or their (the organizational leaders') perception of an employee's (potential) skills, ability and knowledge?

Knowledge management needs to inform the Training & Development function, just as much as it does recruiting; taking the lead in influencing the cycle of knowledge dissemination and innovation. All too often, KM professionals ask, "How do you get people to participate in the knowledge sharing process?" You do it by integrating KM into an organization's overall development strategy.

When I sketched out my very first graphical representation of KM as a college Junior, I envisioned it existing at the intersection of IT, HRD (Training, Education, and Development), and HRM (Selection and Recruitment, Placement, Benefits and Compensation Administration). Over time, within the context of an all-out guerilla KM strategy, I've pondered the subsumption of these functions by knowledge management. Perhaps this concept is a bit premature given that so many organization have such limited awareness (if any at all) of KM, but I think that with increased awareness and adoption, the merger of these functional areas will create a powerful vehicle for creating fundamental changes in how organizations acquire, capture, manage, and leverage knowledge and human resources.

Faith-based KM: Sometime You've Just Gotta Believe

My next post was actually going to be on the impact of KM with regards to employee retention & recruitment (I'm in full recruiter mode y'all - but the cold calls still suck, hehehehe), anyway, I was responding to Jim Lee's most recent post and liked what I wrote enought to re-post here.
______________________
Hmmm, a couple of observations on "valuable content"...I think its important when attempting to promote knowledge sharing activity that people are given a certain amount of latitude in what they share - many people don't immediately recognize the value in their contributions and often wait to share something "special" (and end up not sharing anything at all); I tend to favor encouraging sharing even when it's not particularly valuable just to get people in the habit of sharing.

In terms of identifying value in knowledge, in my opinion, that's part of the role that the knowledge manager plays - identifying areas for further/deeper exploration and becoming involved in the process of building the value of the knowledge base/repository. For all knowledge content, you have to read between the lines and ask "what value does this information have?", "how can this information help the organization achieve it's goals?" - and whether you yourself have any answers (or not), kick it back out to the masses and invite them to answer those questions, as well.

Too many organizations just expect that people know (1) the value of the knowledge they possess and (2) how to communicate that knowledge. This is another important role for knowledge managers - educating people on how to share, in addition to why, what, when, and where (without being too restrictive, limited, or controlling - all of which are counter-productive).

It's interesting here to note that while blogging reflects people's willingness to have a voice and share the contents of their head (however redundant, idiotic, shameless or sardonic), so many organizations are afraid of encouraging the practice internally, because they don't know what they'll get (or, more precisely, they know exactly what they'll get and they don't want to deal with it).

Something to think about: the more you attempt to control the process (and content) of knowledge sharing, the less sharing you're likely to have; and while the narrow focus may have its benefits, are you getting all the knowledge you need/want? I say worry about implementing "controls" after you've created some solid momentum.

As for measurement, I don't know if Stan intentionally or unintentionally left measurement off of his list, but I think it is a topic that gets too much attention. I absolutely see the value in incorporating measurement protocols into your KM strategy, but too much time is expended on trying to quantify the value and the benefit and to what end? Is it helping to get KM up and running? For most organizations, the inability to adequately develop measurement standards prevents KM from even getting out of the gate. I'm not saying it should be a free for all (you can have basic metrics tied to your overall goals), but perhaps organizations should try a more faith-based approach to KM and just go with it until there's actually something to measure.

Sometimes you've just gotta believe.

Applicable Knowledge: Culture audits and inter-departmental relations

Once again, BtoB magazine delivers some thought provoking (to me, at least) articles in its most recent issue.

The first article, CMOs, CFOs work on ROI, relationships, examines how these two departments are now coming together to improve their relationship and better demonstrate the value of Marketing. From a KM perspective, there's obviously tremendous value in building these types of bridges. Unfortunately (in my experience), since most KM strategies are managed, funded, and operate within the organization in which it was established (i.e., Operations, Strategy, Contact Center, Marketing, etc.) KM professionals tend to stay pretty close to home and leave the bridge-buidling to whomever is heading up their deparment. If you don't happen to be the primary contact with key executives like the CFO, CMO, COO, and CEO, then begin by creating a plan to acquire some political "juice" and position yourself - as the KM professional - as the go-to person on all things knowledge management. Most of these folks don't really want all of the day-to-day details, but they like having periodic updates and knowing that there is a person (or persons) they can go to with questions or for information when needed. Building this type of "equity" is also a powerful benefit when growing a KM strategy; what I like to call "guerilla knowledge management".

Trying to figure out where to start with your plan? Education, baby! Remember, "an educated consumer is your best customer." Start by - lightly - educating key execs on your company's/organizations KM efforts: KM goals and vision, key deliverables, challenges, opportunities, lessons learned. If you're publishing a KM e-newsletter, be sure to include them in your distribution list - don't assume that they are receiving this information.

Also, if your execs are local (or if you have the opportunity to travel to HQ), take some initiative and introduce yourself in-person. Try to schedule 15 or 20 minutes with each of them to say 'Hi', put a face to knowledge management, and pick their brain on KM and how they see its strategic direction within the company.

I thought the second article, Does your company need a culture audit?, was especially cool because in my last post I suggested formalizing the Knowledge Audit process within the KM field. In the knowledge auditing process that I use I do include a cultural component that attempts to gauge attitudes about knowledge sharing, but it could (and should) be ramped up a bit to cover general attitudes/perceptions of the overall company culture and mission. After all, corporate culture will either kill or save a knowledge management effort, in most instances, (the exception, I think, being Contact Centers) and attempting to generate buy-in without assessing the culture can result in a disastrous faux pas like trying to sell pork rinds to Muslims. Knowing your audience and understanding the boundaries you are working within is critcal.

Wanted: Free Knowledge - Apply Within

Two posts in one night....ooooooohhh, hehehehe.

Last week, over at my highly off-color Friendster blog, I recounted my experience interviewing for the KM spot at one of Atlanta's pharmaceutical companies. Mostly the interviews went (IMHO) very well, but the last one sucked big honkin' rocks and became the inspiration for the post "So what does a knowledge manager look like, exactly?".

Inspired by my recruiter training and looking back on this interview and at least one other, I came to an interesting conclusion: I was had! It occurred to me that what was for me, an interview, was for the company, a consultation. They were using me (and everyone else they interviewed) as unpaid consultants to help them determine what type of KM strategy they needed and what direction they should go in.

Ain't that a blip!?!?!

Now, I don't have any proof and I'm not naming any names and someone could accuse me of being bitter about not getting an offer - which I'm not; after my experience with Brierley, I've become very good at interviewing the organization as thoroughly as I'm being interviewed, and if they decide they don't want me for one reason or another, I take that as a sign of a poor fit, not a lack of qualification (unless I've been told otherwise) and a good fit is a necessity for me these days.

Anywho, I came to this conclusion because at least two organizations re-issued revised position descriptions following multiple rounds of "interviews" with yours truly (and others, I'm sure). I'm not saying there is/was anything unethical about this or that specific ideas I presented found their way into these revised descriptions, I just think that large, multinational corporations should (and can afford to) hire one of the many qualified and respectable consultants in the field to perform a Knowledge Audit and assess the organizations needs before attempting to fill a KM post. The final assessment should provide the basis for the KM strategy and vision, identify the skills and experience needed for a knowledge manager in that particular organization and, among other things, function as a recruiting tool.

After all, every knowledge manager brings a unique set of skills and experience to the table, which is a beautiful thing because every organization needs something different. However, it is exceedingly rude, disrespectful, and just plain cheap to waste someone's valuable time engaging them in an interview process that can't or won't be consummated because the organization doesn't really know what it wants.

This is why I stress in every interview and conversation I have on KM that a knowledge manager has to be a consultant and not a salesperson. You have to be capable of diagnosing the organizational situation and prescribing an appropriate course of action - maybe you're the right person to tackle the situation, maybe you're not; that is each knowledge managers ethical dilemma - accept the challenge or take a pass. But it is unwise and poor knowledge management to go in selling a solution based solely on what you've done in the past or around a particular set of applications you're experienced using. Large consulting firms do this all the time and I challenge anyone to justify the validity, logic, and, more importantly, the success of mass-produced KM systems/strategies.

At any rate, this whole experience and line of thinking gave me a great idea for carving a niche in the KM market - selling my services as a combined Knowledge Auditor and Recruiter - perform the audit, flesh out the overall strategy, identify the skills needed in the top KM spot, then go out and recruit someone for the job.

And, in line with that statement, I think there should be Knowledge Auditor certification training; just like accountants go through to become CPA's...a CPKA. That would be cool and worth going back to school for but then, what isn't?

I'm such a geek.

Reflections of a...Recruiter?!?!

So much to blog, so little time in the day. Hopefully, I'll be able to write a couple of posts tonight before hitting the sack.

Well, last week I took the plunge and began training as a recruiter with The Bolton Group here in Atlanta. It's 100% commission which, on the one hand, is janky as all hell, and on the other hand, trés cool because it provides me with all the tools I need to learn the business while I (ethically) continue my search for a KM position. Besides, the ultimate goal here is to develop a niche within KM and that's the prize I have to keep my eye on.

As a people/community development centered knowledge manager this is probably a horrible thing to say, but recruiting over the last week and a half has brought me back to ancient (read: high school) wisdom I used to swear by: people are basically stupid.

With all due respect to corporate loyalty and to Accounting/Finance professionals who probably field a dozen calls from recruiters each month (many of whom are most likely obnoxious and sales-y), when someone calls you with nothing to offer but their phone number and email address in the event that you, or someone you know, might be interested in exploring a new opportunity, you don't hang up on them or turn them away; you politely take their information and tell them you'll call if you need their services. Of course, if they are an ass who calls you every week with the same sales pitch, feel free to give them a mouthful - a good recruiter should at least remember with whom s/he's spoken, but even then, you should feel good knowing that you have options and you're a valuable commodity in the job market - a lot of folks don't get to experience that.

Speaking for myself, I've pretty much ditched the script we've been given and simply use the networking approach - give out my name and company, explain that I'm a recruiter/headhunter and ask if they'd like to take down my phone number and email address in case they (or someone they know) might be interested in seeking out a new opportunity/situation. I say "hello" and "thank you" and ask them how they're doing (contrary to what the shady Brit who's instructing us has said). I don't ask them highly specific details about their current job (except their title) and experience, unless they engage me in a conversation and, even then, I keep my questions to a minimum out of respect for the fact that they are at work - and the fact that I've got at least sixty of these calls to make each day; if they're serious, they'll send a resume and give me a time to call them when we can get into all of that.

About half of the folks will at least take down my information or ask me to send them an email with my contact info, but the other half will tell me how happy they are and decline to take my information.

The recruiter in me is dumbfounded: exactly how many people does the average person have on their list of contacts and among their circle of friends that, if they decided to look for a new job/position for any reason, they could call up and have them be completely dedicated to finding said job/position (more than likely at an increased salary) at absolutely no cost to them???? I can tell you right now, I've got bupkiss - nada, no one. I've got folks who will "keep their ears open" but none who will do the job search and finesse the offer for me.

The knowledge manager in me is perplexed: if all of these folks are so friggin' loyal and happy why aren't most of 'em properly and adequately sharing their knowledge? Are these people the moth-eaten coats in your corporate knowledge closet that need to be cleaned out and dumped in the donation bin?

That's not completely fair, it is possible to be satisfied with where you're at and be a contributing member of that organizational community. I guess I'm just bitter because I don't have any recruiters blowing up my phone and all the ones I've worked with in the past were basically filling the position as a one-off for a client they'd previously worked with. They didn't understand enough about KM to effectively flesh out the job order or prep me for meeting with the company; same with HR. That's what I hope to change. Who better to help companies ascertain and retain the right candidate for their KM and organizational needs than a knowledge manager.

God, I love being an innovator! I just hate making cold calls! :-)

Applicable Knowledge: Improving Knowledge Base Search Functionality

Maintaining optimum performance of your knowledge base or content management systems search functionality is a critical factor (some might say the critical factor) in its effectiveness and utility. After all, users need to be able to find the content they are looking for quickly and easily, otherwise the system, regardless of how pretty it is or how much content it contains, is a bust and will most likely be abandoned in favor of other options.

Since working at B+P, I find a lot inspiration for branding KM from marketing literature. Strategies that revolve around promoting and/or improving awareness of products/services can often be applied to KM strategies as well.

In the July 10 edition of BtoB (which I picked up in my mail today - hey, I'm a busy boy), there is a nice article on Honing Your SEM Strategy. The article outlines 13 best practices for maximizing organic and paid search efforts.

I've used a couple of these practices (below) in my own efforts to improve the search functionality of knowledge management systems I've worked with and thought others - with a little tweaking towards KM - could be useful as well. Check out the full article to see what else might work for you!

• Track search terms and access patterns
  Periodically, look at the terms users are searching on and update your search engine accordingly. Pay particular attention to commonly misspelled terms. Also, identify patterns that indicate trends around types of content being accessed. In conjunction with tools used to track content hits/accesses/views, this information can be helpful in proactively capturing and promoting highly desirable content.
  
• Use multimedia replays
  Honestly, I've been scratching my head for the last 20 minutes trying to understand how replays can help promote search...period, but I know from experience that they are an extremely effective tool for sharing information. In fact, this same issue of BtoB offered very cool insight on the popularity of b-to-b podcasting, for example, delivering white papers or analyst reports as both documents and multimedia replays. The key: make it interesting! Users want dynamic and provocative, not droning and prosaic. Also, just as a sidenote from yours truly, even though podcasts are hot right now, replays should reflect a variety of formats (e.g., mp3, mpg, wmv, mov, avi, rm). It doesn't have to be ALL of them, just enough to provide maximum coverage.
  
• Provide a linked list of the top keyword searches on your site
  Every time I open a browser, my MyYahoo! homepage provides a rotating banner at top of the top searches across a range of interests for the day. This way, I know Paris Hilton was the most searched celebrity and Kanye West was the most searched musical artist. And, in case I give a rat's behind about these people, I can click on the link provided and search them as well. It's gimmicky, but effective. Not only does it provide a quick link to popular information, but it informs users of what information is most popular.
  
• Use editorial calendars to predict hot search terms
  Get a jump on keywords and buzz words by looking at major themes being presented in upcoming industry trades (publications). I love this idea because it rocks if your knowledge management system is internal only and it makes you look like a rock star (on the edge and in the know) if your system is also externally accessible.
  

Flip The Script: An Employee's Incentive To Share?

Writing this post has taken much more time than I thought it would. My thoughts have been all over the place with this topic and I'm sure it could easily be spread out over multiple posts (which I just might do), but since I have a tendency to go off on tangents, I wanted to be sure that I hit the most salient point first.

This post is written primarily for employees trying to understand how KM can benefit them, and less for practitioners looking for tips on achieving employee buy-in, but hopefully everyone can learn something valuable.

As any good professional must do, I was reading various KM-related articles and blogs last week when it occurred to me (not quite so suddenly; I've had this thought before, but now that I'm pounding the pavement I'm, perhaps, a little more sensitive to it) how very one-sided, arrogant, and quite possibly, unprincipled most, if not all, organizations are about their KM needs, and, subsequently, their KM strategies.

In so many of the articles/blogs/studies I've been reading, the focus (today, just as it was when I was studying KM 7 years ago as an undergrad) is on (1) how KM can benefit the organization and (2) implementing effective KM strategies that inevitably ask, "How do you get KM to work?" and "How do you get people to share knowledge/information?" All with very little, if any, consideration for the knowledge bearers in these organizations - the people they hope to get information from (and need to get information from in order for these efforts to be successful).

Anyone who works in this field should be acutely aware of the socio-economic and cultural landscape that has and continues to shape our attitudes about work and how we are valued at work (what I know = my value to the organization). The volatile and uncertain economy of recent years hasn't done much to change this attitude, on the contrary, it has reinforced it. While outsourcing, mergers, acquisitions and layoffs have driven organizations to seek out innovative and sustainable KM solutions, they have reduced employees' incentive to participate in them. And, quite honestly, why should they? What's in it for them?

I mean, if my company lays-off and/or outsources a section of its employees every couple of years then why should I care about their need to prevent valuable knowledge from walking out the very door they are holding open and possibly escorting me through? As long as I have the tools and resources to do my job, I'm good. And if I do find a pink e-slip in my Inbox, well then, at least I'll leave knowing those bastards don't have the benefit of my expertise and know-how - which I'll take to my next job.

And don't even think about asking me to train a replacement.

Harsh, I know, but this is the reality of today's workplace. Corporate loyalty died along with Customer Service. Unlike my parents' and grandparents' generations, people in my generation (That would be 'X') seldom stay in one place for the duration of their careers - both out of necessity (career and financial growth) and as a result of that volatile market I mentioned before. You're also competing - all of the time! Within your company you're competing for promotions and raises and exciting opportunities to demonstrate your value; outside of the company you're competing against people with either similar or more experience/education as well as folks with less experience/education than you who are willing to work for less! Reducing your personal competitive advantage isn't going to help you pay your bills or make it up the corporate ladder. Yet, in a roundabout way, that's exactly what most organizations are asking employees to do - give up some (or all) of your personal competitive advantage for the benefit of the organization.

And again, I ask, "Why? What's in it for them?" Organizations are fond of talking about corporate citizenship and employee responsibilities and quick to point out how knowledge sharing benefits the company "as a whole" (read: the people who realize the most financial benefit from the organization's success and prosperity), but the inability to answer the questions I posed previously, ultimately becomes the monkey wrench in the KM machine. That's certainly the case with the organizations I've spoken to.

My solution: self-interest and self-preservation.

Flip The Script
First off, most KM strategies I've come across aren't meant to directly benefit the employee. Oh sure, organizations want employees to have ready access to information so that they can be more efficient and productive employees, but they'd just as soon have you check that information at the door when you leave and re-acquire it again when you return to work. Fortunately, it doesn't work that way.

Knowledge managment is only partially about organizing information, the remainder of any good strategy is about leveraging that information - taking what you know and making it useful, beneficial, valuable. To "flip the script" and make KM work for you involves having a plan around where you want to go professionally and what you'll need to get there. Once you've got that in place make sure that for every contribution you make to the Knowledge Base, you take something for your self that takes you closer to your personal goals; call it a "user fee".

And don't think of it as stealing, because it's not, it's sharing. (This ain't like that Coca-Cola scam last month.) You are acquiring the skills you need to be a better worker, there's just no guarantee you'll be "a better worker" for that particular employer forever and ever.

Sharing Is Sensible, Not Stupid
It's a pain in the ass to let go of old habits and notions, particularly when it comes to our perceived value in an organization. After all, companies do pay you for what you know. However, that value is established (monetarily) when you're hired - the only (reasonable) way to receive a new and improved valuation is to increase what you know. (Certainly, you'll want to make more in your next job.) And, if the price of the new information is stuff you already knew, then share it already! Denise Rowe, one of my earliest mentors during my time with Ernst & Young, taught me that unless you are doing something no one else can do (and very, very few fall into that category) you are replaceable. It may suck to see you go, but if they can find someone else to do your job better or cheaper or both, they will. People who don't share, don't learn as much or as quickly as folks who do, so don't fixate on where you're at, focus on where you want to go.

Make A Plan and Follow It
My philosophy of KM is that the strategy should reflect the actual needs of the organization, rather than any industry standards or imagined needs. I know this seems pretty simple, but you'd be amazed how many organizations adopt strategies that don't follow this logic. When it comes to making KM work for you as an individual, I stress the same approach. In fact, that's how I achieve employee buy-in with even the most ornery folks, by asking, "What do you want?" and "What do you need?" (Every person, no matter how skeptical, has wants and needs, discovering them and putting a plan together around meeting them is the key to making a critic an ally). The central element of your plan needs to be understanding your career/professional goals. From there, identify the skills, tools, knowledge, experience needed to help you achieve your goals and determine how you can utilize organizational resources to this end.

Opportunistic much?!?! Hell yeah; better to be ambitious and opportunistic than complacent and bitter - and bitter is what you will be either watching other people assertively pursue (and get) opportunities you believed (the urban myth of) corporate loyalty would reward you with or standing in the unemployment line looking dazed and confused.

Sharing Makes You Shine
Now, with a sub-heading like that, you might be inclined to think I'm about to stab you in the back and give some sell-out speech on the Joy of Knowledge Management, but trust me on this. Just like companies who inform their industry are perceived as industry leaders, people who share most frequently are considered experts and "go-to" people. You want a quck assessment of your value to the organization? Take a look at who is coming to you for information and how often. You don't get that by passing the buck or playing stupid - in fact, you could be a solid performer, but when people can't or don't come to you with questions or for solutions, it's easy for you to become one of those people whose actual role everyone questions, "What exactly does so-and-so do?" Now, of course, you don't want to be a Stan (that's my imaginary know-it-all who is incapable of getting his own job done because everybody comes to him with their neverending questions).

And you don't have to be.

Stan's biggest problem is not that people come to him for everything, it's that he doesn't know how to manage people to prevent them from interfering with him doing his job. Share what you know, but share wisely. Besides, isn't that what the company's new KM system is for?

The implementation of a new KM system/strategy doesn't have to be a blight on the workplace. It also doesn't have to be just about what the organization hopes to achieve towards its bottom line. Developing your personal competitive advantage is an excellent individual benefit of KM for the ambitious, motivated employee dedicated to furthering the goals of their own bottom line.

So What Does A Knowledge Manager Look Like, Exactly?

It's pushing up on 2am in Atlanta and I've got the Rafael Lelis Club Mix of Christina Aguilera's "Ain't No Other Man" blaring so I can stay focused, write this post quickly and catch some Zzz's before berry pickin' down at Adam's Farm in Fayetteville in a few hours.

Though I've been something of a flogger this week, I have been keeping notes on topics I want to write about. I also decided that at least once a month, going forward, I'd like to start posting some ideas of how KM can be leveraged in various industries and companies. I was in Nashville's equivalent of Discover Mills last weekend and passing Old Navy reminded me of how stale the men's fashion industry is and being both a knowledge manager and fashionista I thought, "How can KM benefit Old Navy and the men's fashion industry as a whole?" (Who hasn't asked this question?!?!?!)

I'm always hearing folks question what the future of KM is and I think that in order for the field to grow there needs to be more practical application of KM concepts and processes; proactive vs reactive KM.

So, while I'm showing my age and cultural influences, I was watching Making the Band 3 last week and thinking about how much image is touted in the music industry and wondering how important image is within the field of KM and how often it (and salesmanship) override substance and what effect this has on the validity of (and respect for) KM.

On Tuesday I had my last meeting with the division head of one of the companies I've been interviewing with. I think it was a largely ceremonial interview, particularly since he really didn't have a clue about what KM was or even what he thought KM could/might be able to do for his division (that, and he nodded off a few times - soooo sketchy), but anyway, reading between the lines of some of his comments, it seemed to me that he was sort of doubting or disqualifying my ability to do the job because of my age and limited experience (4 yrs).

I got the impression that his expectation of a knowledge manager is someone much older than me with 10-20 years experience (no less than 5 years at any one company and not necessarily in KM), a PhD (in God only knows what), certifications from various organizations, and probably a few scholarly articles and/or books to their credit. (Mind you, this is not the job description). At any rate, he seemed quite dismissive which offended me since it completely ignored my education and experience (and complete overqualification for the position as described) and also because my presentation ROCKED and impressed the other 18 people I had met within the division.

Anyway, it had me thinking about a few things. Please keep in mind it's early in the AM and some of these might not make sense:

(1) The image of KM and how many folks (professional and otherwise) paint a pretty picture vs selling a solid strategy. And by "paint a pretty picture" I mean anything from trying to sell a concept of KM that caters more to an organizations ignorance about KM (as opposed to creating/setting realistic expecations which aren't always "pretty") to selling technology tools/applications as a definitive KM solution (totally ignoring the whole "culture/community development aspect of KM").

On the flip side - thinking about organizations that have pre-defined what they want KM to be - do you walk away when an organization is asking you to implement something that isn't necessarily KM or doesn't truly reflect the KM needs of the organization?

I wonder, if I took more of a sales and less of a consultative approach would I have been better received?

(2) Was is it really age-discrimination? I haven't been offered or denied the opportunity so this is not a legal question in the least, I'm thinking more about the fact that while KM is a really forward-thinking, visionary field there isn't any regulation or structure and it still has not hit the mainstream. If I were in Marketing, I might be seen as a young gun with exciting new ideas. If I were a physician or professor I would be considered completely green, no matter how brilliant or accomplished (respect comes with time and tenure in these professions), but in a field without any real structure or career path - with professionals that are both like me and those who actually fit the description above, isn't it easy to be dismissive of someone in my shoes as being more ambitious than experienced - regardless of what is in my resume or how flawless I present my strategy and recommendations?

Much like in Sales and Marketing I feel that to be successful in this field you have to be an innovator, entrepreneurial, you have to be on the edge, with an eye for new opportunities to grow the field and grow within the field. I'm not saying I'm more qualified than the next person (depending on who they are) but I certainly feel my age and focused experience within KM (in very different organzations) enhances my value as a candidate.

3) Touching on that last point, one of the concerns voiced was my length of tenure at each of the previous companies I've worked. I'm not even going to get into the generational comparisons of how long people stay at any one job these days versus the mid-20th century, but in KM aren't there advantages to experiencing the challenges and opportunities presented by various organizations? I'm not saying job-hop for the sake of job-hopping, but how can you grow in the field if you've only experienced KM in one setting, industry, culture, country? And, isn't that what career development is all about - chasing increasingly challenging and fulfilling opportunities and experience?

I'll let y'all know if I get offered the job ;-)

The Executive Exception

Thus far in my career, I've worked on two full lifecycle KM engagements and one of the (many) things that irks me is how Senior Executives (including the President and CEO) have been non-users of the KM systems I've been involved with. During my time with Ariba, I'm not even sure if our Sr. Execs even knew the company had a knowledge base (if they did, maybe they wouldn't have laid off half of the team....I'm not bitter, lol), but in my last position with B+P both the President and the company founder were aware that a system had been deployed, yet neither of them ever logged into it.

At Ariba, I challenged the argument that execs at this level should be exempt from having to manage their own content (usually submitted and managed by direct reports or admin) - to no avail. I wonder, however, if exempting Sr. Execs from knowledge management activity (even the mundane stuff - it's mundane for everybody) diminishes their awareness of the critical value of knowledge management and factors into why so many KM efforts fail; after all, if its not supported, in practice, by your senior leadership, then why should the rank and file give a hoot?

One could argue that the higher the position in the organizational hierarchy, the greater the responsibility to share one's knowledge and, thusly, demonstrate and model good knowledge stewardship.

Christian's Kick-a** KM Roadmap

I recently updated the Knowledge Management Roadmap I use to establish my KM strategy overview. I took some inspiration from the Roadmap created by Amrit Tiwana (formerly of my alma mater, Georgia State) in his book, Knowledge Management Toolkit.

I'm still figuring out how to attach the PDF to this post, but you can email me at youngde1@gmail.com for a copy.

Essentially, this Roadmap breaks-out into five steps the various processes I employ in my approach.

Phase 1: Knowledge Audit
Every KM strategy should begin with a knowledge audit. How elaborate the audit might be is driven by whether or not an existing, documented strategy is in place and/or the level of carte blanche held by the Knowledge Manager. On the one hand, if you're walking into an existing, documented strategy you might have to get by with a very informal knowledge audit while you wrap your hands around what's going on in the organization. On the other hand, if you're starting fresh - and you have the carte blanche and organizational support to do so, you might be able to conduct a wide-scale knowledge audit; it's important to establish how much carte blanche (or "juice") you have at the onset - nothing worse than doing something full-on only to have someone slam on the breaks.

Along with performing the knowledge audit I am usually understanding and setting expectations of KM (by asking - and answering - these questions of the stakeholders, "What does KM mean to you?" and "What do you expect from KM?"); Defining and documenting the scope and vision (What does a fully implemented KM strategy look like the organization?); and, achieving buy-in (something that never ends).

Phase 2: KM Strategy Blueprint
This phase is all about taking the information collected in Phase 1 and building out the KM strategy, establishing metrics (which correlate directly with the intended deliverables!); building out a functional requirements document (what does your KM system/application need to be able to do, as indicated by the information you gathered in your knowledge audit regarding the needs of the various stakeholders in the organization?); determine the human resources needed to make the strategy work; and, yet again, acheive buy-in of the the strategy you've devloped.

This is also the phase where I would be comparing off-the-shelf applications and understanding how each could be customized to suit the needs of the organization.

Phase 3: KMS Development
If you've never had to establish a content classification methodology then consider yourself blessed because this really is a pain in the buh-tocks. Not only is this methodolgy driving how content is captured and organized in your system, it's also driving your search functionality which is huge determinant of how functional your system is (if folks can't find content they won't like your system, and if they don't like it, they won't use it, and if they don't use it, you probably won't be that company's KM for very long).

Never fear, though, you're also doing plenty of QA, UAT, and bug-fixing in this phase before you get to Phase 4.

Phase 4: KMS Deployment

Each phase of this roadmap is critical, but this is really where you put your money where your mouth is! Not only are you rolling out your knowledge management system, you're also having to launch your branding campaign which involves all of the marketing and education around both your system and KM, in general.

More thought definitely needs to go into branding knowledge management. I think the traditional technology focus most folks take when thinking about and implementing KM ill prepares both organizations and knowledge managers for this aspect of KM. Neverthless, "pimpin'" KM is hyper critical to making it successful!

Phase 5: KMS Evaluation
This is both the end of the KM cycle and the beginning, because it will set the stage for the next knowledge audit (which I think should be done on an annual basis, but that's what works for me). Basically, this phase goes back to all of those goals that were set in Phase 2 and evaluates how well they were acheived based on the pre-determined metrics.

I know that at this point, the temptation to add a little gloss to the results might appeal to some depending on what they to work with, but my experience is that the only way to really make KM work is to be as critically honest as possible. Obviously highlight positives, but don't be afraid to emphasize negatives as well; providing reasons for why things did or didn't work along with recommendations for resolving issues and improving outcomes.

Honesty is key not only for professional integrity, but also because you can't truly address critical organizational issues if you're not confronting them - and somebody has to, why not the "knowledge manager".

KM Career Information/Resources

I was cleaning up my KM IE Favorites links today and came across some career resource information that I thought folks might find useful.

The International Center for Applied Studies in Information Technology at George Mason University has compiled a list of KM degree and certificate programs that can be found here. The site also features a list of KM-related dissertations (with downloadable topic list) as well as a list of priviate companies offering KM education.

Kent University, which offers an MSc in Information Architecture and Knowledge Management, offers a list of KM Careers and Resources (including professional organizations) to assist those interested in the field.

Although I've still yet to find any US search firms/recruiters that specialize in staffing KM positions - and by specialize I don't mean they've placed a couple of folks here and there - this article on recruiting brought UK-based TFPL to my attention. They focus on recruiting in four areas: KM, library & information management, records management, and web & content management.

Just a thought, I have seen the odd KM position (those leaning more towards knowledge librarians) posted by Library & Information Management recruiters, but I wonder if those agencies are the most ideal for recruiting KM positions, in general.

Thoughts on the KM Interview Process

Well, it's been months since I started my blog and I've finally come to the realization that I'm a total flogger...a flaky blogger. You say you're gonna write, you tell the world you're going to put in the time, and then you flake out, giving nothing to world but wordless disappointment.

So, in an effort to rebuild some of my unearned trust, I thought I'd finally create a new post.
______________________________________

Towards the end of February my dreams of bringing knowledge management to Brierley+Partners turned to dust when I was told the company could no longer afford to fund the project - which particularly sucked because I was told at the onset that funding was very much a non-issue. At any rate, I've relocated back to Atlanta and have been interviewing nonstop for various KM positions locally.

The interview process is interesting for a number of reasons:
1) I'm always curious about the background of other applicants. Although my BS is in Urban Policy Studies and my MSc (when I finish my thesis) is in Adult Education and Organizational Learning, I've focused my entire academic career in the field of knowledge management - every paper, (most) every project centered around acquiring and developing the skills I felt would be most beneficial to my career. I didn't have the benefit of any advisors or course selections throughout school and the literature I was reading was too academic and theoretical (and too heavily focused on KM technology tools) which pushed me to really develop my own theories and, in my opinion, has made me a better knowledge manager.

During at least two interviews I was asked about my affiliation with KM organizations such as KMPro , KM Benchmarking Assn (KMBA), and Assn of Knowledgework (AOK) or any KM certifications I held. I suppose because of the academic and career success I've enjoyed (despite being booted from B+P) I've yet to see the benefit of joining any organizations and I think 6 years of digging for, chewing up and spitting out every nugget of info I could on KM plus 3+ years of working in the trenches trumps the certifications currently available. Still, I know that many process-driven orgs like being able to see (and tout) certification, so I'm curious to know what if any, other applicants bring to the table, in addition to their academic and professional training.

2) I'm also curious about how other KM applicants approach the interview process. Typically, I take a very consultative approach. I use my initial interview as a means of acquiring enough information to develop a high-level strategy which I then pitch during the follow-up interview. Mostly, my interviewers are very impressed with this strategy, but at least one company still chose to offer the position to the other candidate. I wasn't upset about not being chosen (I kinda sorta didn't really want the job after doing a little more research into the company and uncovering some cultural similarities to my last job that were a little too close for comfort), but after my kick-ass pitch I wondered what could have topped it. Of course, I've interviewed for KM jobs in the past that went to PhD's and professionals with 20 years experience (not all within KM) so I can see how that beats my more limited experience, but when it doesn't, is it really just a personality fit? Does the company have more if an idea about what they need/want they are letting on in the position description and early stages of the interview process? Did I set the bar too high? Too low????

3) The other thing that intrigues me is KM recruitment. Since Atlanta is not really a hotbed of KM opportunities I've actually been exploring the idea of moving into recruiting. Part of the pain of job hunting in this field is that there isn't any person or organization that really focuses on recruiting within the field of KM. Many, if not most, of the current professionals have come into the field from other areas, usually in response to the specific needs of an organization (which they may or may not have successfully responeded to) and not always with a larger awareness of the entirety of KM. Outside of the "real world" (read: business world) there are a few KM courses cropping up here and there, but there isn't a prescribed path for pursuing a career in the field.

I find it ironic that when I was in undergrad at Georgia State, while I was given room to do my thing, there wasn't any real support for my studies. And then, less than four years later, fresh from my graduate studies and working in my first KM gig I was back at GSU giving a presentation on KM to a knowledge management class with my co-workers.

Still, today, KM is not often regarded as a critical strategic function that necessitates (a) dedicated resource(s) and requires, academically speaking, a multi-disciplinary background; effective knowledge managers are strategists, marketers, salespeople, financial analysts, techies, psychologists, web designers, statisticians, data analysts, librarians, researchers, entrepreneurs, reporters, secretaries, telemarketers, stalkers, hand holders, and babysitters all-in-one!

But I digress...

The point is that there isn't a generally accepted idea of what knowledge management is; there isn't fixed career path; typically only the hiring manager knows what s/he is looking for and the average (read: pretty much most of them) recruiter doesn't have a clue which, in my opinion, limits their ability to effectively fill the position(s).

I'd love to see some of the KM orgs out there begin to address these types of issues as a means of growing the field. In the meantime, if none of the KM opps I'm working on pan out, maybe I'll take up the recruiter challenge. Being a pioneer certainly suits me (as long as I can do it in capris) ;-)

Jumping In...

Well, I created this account months ago and I figured I might as well post something otherwise it just goes to waste, y'know.

I'm a pretty good at keeping a regular daily journal, but aside from (increasingly infrequent) mass emails to friends, I'm not super big on putting my unfiltered thoughts out for public consumption. Buuuuut, I'm hoping the practice of doing just that will help me to write articles for (fingers-crossed) publication. Which is something that I definitely think will help me to grow in my career.

As stated in the title of this blog, I am a knowledge manager. I help organizations to develop and implement strategies for capturing and leveraging organizational knowledge. For me, it's an exciting career that combines my passion for organizational strategy with my social butterfly tendencies. For me the key to being a good knowledge manager is less about mastery of tech tools and discussions on intellecual property and more about understanding how people relate to one another.

Recently, I've begun working with a new company and I'm working overtime to get adjusted to the environment and clear new hurdles. I'm hoping this blog will serve as a sounding board for my frustrations and a clearinghouse for lessons learned in the line of duty.